Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[**Avis juridique important**](../../../editorial/legal_notice.htm)

*|*

# 52003DC0479

**Report from the Commission to the Council with regard to developments in consumption, washing and marking of eggs /\* COM/2003/0479 final \*/**

  

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL with regard to developments in consumption, washing and marking of eggs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Summary and conclusions

2. Introduction

3. Developments of egg consumption

3.1. Eggs in shell versus egg products

3.2. Consumption of table eggs by farming methods

3.3. Marketing channels

3.4. Producer and retail prices

4. Hygiene legislation and washing of eggs

4.1. Council Decision 94/371/EC

4.2. Recasting of food hygiene legislation (hygiene legislation proposals)

4.3. Washing of eggs

4.3.1. State of the art

4.3.2. Developments in Sweden

5. Marking of table eggs

5.1. Welfare Directive and Farm register

5.2. Marking of table eggs

5.2.1. Eggs produced in the EU

5.2.2. Imported eggs

6. Recommendations and proposals

1. Summary and conclusions

This report replies to the request from the Council to examine egg consumption trends and the questions of egg hygiene, washing and marking to identify producer and production method. Based amongst other on ad-hoc expert group meetings and data collected from trade organisations and Member States, it describes consumption and marketing patterns with regard to eggs from different farming methods and aims to identify and propose possible measures to adapt the common marketing standards for eggs.

The report arrives at the following conclusions and recommendations:

1. In order both to improve traceability of eggs and information of consumers the stamping of table eggs with a code designating the producer's distinguishing number and permitting the farming method to be identified should be implemented as from 1 January 2004 as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 5/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90.

2. In order to facilitate control of egg sales in local markets, also eggs sold by producers from their own production in these markets should be stamped.

3. Washing of table eggs under strict surveillance should be authorised for a transitional period of three years for packing establishments which on 1 June 2003 had been approved to this end. The European Food Safety Authority should prepare a comprehensive scientific report on washing of table eggs by 31 December 2005.

4. The Commission will promote campaigns run by professional organisations aiming at information of consumers about the new rules for egg marking.

5. The Commission will adapt Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 with a view to provide, on the one hand, for sufficient flexibility in particular for small producers on the question where eggs should be stamped (farm or packing centre) and, on the other hand, for additional guarantees to prevent fraudulent practices in trade at the level of producers, packers and wholesalers.

6. The Commission will also propose adaptations to Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 concerning identification marking of establishments (collectors, packing centres) and will take the necessary measures to avoid any overlapping between marketing standards and future Community rules on hygiene in particular as regards the approval of such establishments.

2. Introduction

On 19 December 2000 the Council introduced into the marketing standards for eggs compulsory marking of table eggs in the Community with a producer code permitting the farming method to be identified.

Council Regulation (EC) No 5/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs [1] laid down that this provision should apply as from 1 January 2004.

[1] OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 1.

In the same Regulation the Council asked the Commission to present a report in the following terms: "The Commission shall submit to the Council by no later than 30 June 2003 a report on developments with regard to egg consumption, the wishes of consumers and of consumers organisations and the issue of egg marking and egg monitoring, together with suitable proposals".

This report should furthermore according to the recitals 6 of the said Regulation, look at "developments in the area of food hygiene rules, particularly as regards washed eggs, and on the outcome of World Trade Organisation negotiations".

On 16 December 2002 the Council reached political agreement on a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin, with the inclusion in the Council's minutes of certain declarations from the Commission. In particular, the Commission confirms that, pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 5/2001, it will submit a report to the Council by 30 June 2003, together with appropriate proposals. The report will discuss in particular the relationship between hygiene legislation and legislation on the marketing of eggs, including identification marking, approval of establishments and washing of eggs.

The present report answers these requests. It is based, amongst other, on two expert group meetings to which representatives from producer, trade and consumer organisations had been invited. Furthermore, the question of egg washing has been examined with experts and during a visit to Sweden. Finally, this report does not refer to WTO negotiations as these talks are still in preparatory stage.

3. Developments of egg consumption

3.1. Eggs in shell versus egg products

Human egg consumption is mainly followed on the basis of two data series:

(a) Consumer purchases of eggs;

(b) Supply balance sheets.

Household panel data usually cover purchases of eggs in shell only and thus represent a part of total egg consumption not including household purchases of egg products or egg contents of foodstuff and consumption in catering.

In supply balance sheets total human egg consumption is calculated by adding/deducting import/export of eggs and egg products to (estimated) production of eggs, taking into account of other than food uses (eggs for hatching and technical use, losses, change in stocks).

Total human egg consumption calculated from supply balance sheets and expressed in kg per capita is shown in Table 1 for the Member States since 1986 (Austria, Sweden, Finland: since 1991).

Average EU per capita consumption looks to have been rather stable since 1990 oscillating between 12,5 and 13,5 kg. This stability is the combined results of divergent developments in three groups of countries. In certain Member States (UK, Spain, Italy, Ireland) two periods can be distinguished:

- until the early nineties: a drop and

- in recent years: a recovery of per-capita consumption.

A second group of countries registers a drop of consumption (Germany until early nineties, Finland, less in Sweden), whereas finally in the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy in the very last years consumption is rising.

Of particular importance for the development of overall egg consumption in developed countries is the growing consumption of convenience food as a result of social trends (single-person households and out-of-home work of women increasing). As a consequence, egg products and/or food containing eggs more and more replace the use of eggs in shell by households and catering.

Although there are no comprehensive statistics in the EU to provide reliable data various sources confirm this trend. 2002 estimates point to a 20% share of all table eggs being processed by the egg product industry. This figure is expected to reach more than 30% over the next ten years, similarly to the development in the USA, where today already one third of all table eggs produced are being processed.

3.2. Consumption of table eggs by farming methods

In parallel with growing awareness of animal welfare questions in Central and North-Western Europe demand for eggs from other than caged hens has steadily increased since the seventies and egg farming has adapted to these changes.

Within the Common Marketing Standards for eggs provision has been made as early as 1985 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1831/84 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1943/85) for harmonised criteria, labelling and control of "alternative" farming methods (free range, deep litter, perchery/barn).

These farming methods were defined in 2001 to take account of Council Directive 1999/74/EC on the protection of laying hens and summarised in only three categories as from 2002:

- free range,

- barn,

- cage.

On the basis of data collected by Member States in the framework of the marketing standards regulations, the evolution of alternative hen numbers in the Community can be illustrated. As shown in Table 2, the total number increased from some 10 Mio in 1991 to 39 Mio in 2002, or from 3% to 14% of all hens. UK, A, IRL, DK and NL score more than 20%, whereas E, EL and P have no or only few hens in non-cage commercial units.

Regarding retail sales, free range and barn eggs reach higher shares in particular in exporting countries like NL as well as in DK and A (close to 50%) where supermarket chains, on their own initiative and/or under pressure from animal welfare groups, have greatly reduced or even stopped sales of cage eggs. Partial data are available from Germany where packed eggs with "special marketing terms" [2] have increased their share in total retail sales of eggs from 26% in 1998 to 39 % in 2002 (source: ZMP). For the UK it is estimated that by 2012 the egg market will be 50% cage and 50% alternative, of which 42% free range, 8% barn (source: EUWEP, expert group meeting February 2003).

[2] Methods of farming incl. organic, "corn eggs".

The organic egg market is of minor importance. According to a study published in 2002 production of organic eggs in 2000 reached 1,3% on EU average, DK being the notable exception with 15% (see Table 3).

Sales of alternative eggs have been partly reduced in 2002 in some countries following slower growth of consumer income (source: ZMP).

3.3. Marketing channels

The Commission has invited representatives of producers, trade and consumers to two expert group meetings to examine consumption trends and questions of egg marking (July 2002, February 2003). The experts were amongst other asked to supply data on sales and purchasing patterns for table eggs. Unfortunately data received are not representative for the Community as information was made available for few Member States only (see Tables 4a and 4b).

The following conclusions are therefore valid only for the Member States shown:

- direct sales from farmers to consumers are generally not more than 10% except Austria (organic and free range eggs) and Germany. For the latter country, however, changed data collection as from 2003 has resulted in significantly different pattern; direct sales (at the farm, door-to-door, local markets) of formerly nearly 50% of all household purchases have fallen to 22%;

- the share of producer-packers various greatly according to Member State (E: 99%, F: 35% for cage eggs) and method of production (no producer-packer for free range/organic eggs in France, but share between 30% and 85% in A).

3.4. Producer and retail prices

Data supplied by the expert group for up to 5 Member States illustrate that at retail barn/deep litter eggs are on average 60% more expensive than standard cage eggs. For free range eggs and organic eggs consumers are asked to pay 95% and 150% higher prices. These price differences are lower when discount retailers (ALDI etc.) get more involved in the sale of alternative eggs.

The price differences are in contrast to:

- declaration by the consumer representative in the expert group of February 2003 that consumers are ready to pay 40% more for alternative eggs;

- the production costs for eggs [3] of different types show smaller differences than the respective retail prices i.e. retail margins are higher for alternative eggs.

[3] Assuming that 2002 was an "average" year for producers were prices received were at or slightly above break even.

4. Hygiene legislation and washing of eggs

4.1. Council Decision 94/371/EC

Council Decision 94/371/EC lays down certain specific public health conditions for the placing on the market of hens' eggs belonging to the following types: class A eggs, non-refrigerated or non-preserved class B eggs and ungraded eggs. However, it does not apply to eggs intended for the production of egg products.

Its major objectives are to regulate critical steps of the production and marketing chain of eggs:

\* storage and transportation:

the Decision states that eggs must be kept dry, out of direct sunshine and stored and transported at a preferably constant temperature at the producer's premises until sale to the consumer;

\* delivery to the consumer:

the Decision sets out the maximum time limit for delivering eggs to the consumer at 21 days after laying. In addition, it defines the sell-by date as a period corresponding to the date of minimum durability less seven days.

Some of these provisions have been taken into account when recasting the existing Community legislation on food hygiene, as described below.

4.2. Recasting of food hygiene legislation (hygiene legislation proposals)

One of the key elements of the White Paper on Food Safety, which was adopted by the Commission in January 2000, is the hygiene package. This package, which comprises five legislative acts, will create a single transparent hygiene policy and will merge, harmonise and simplify EU hygiene legislation previously covered by 17 separate directives. It has thus resulted in five proposals for Regulations relating to food hygiene, official controls and animal health problems.

Good progress was made in the legislative process for this package since it was submitted to the Council and the European Parliament on 24 July 2000 for adoption by co-decision. The fourth proposal was adopted and published in December 2002. Moreover, the Council reached political agreement on the first proposal in June 2002 and in December 2002 on the second proposal. It agreed, however, that it would not adopt a common position until it had made sufficient progress on other elements of the package (mainly the third proposal) so as to ensure their consistency.

The leitmotif throughout the recasting of the hygiene rules, and particularly in the two first proposals, is that food operators bear full and prime responsibility for the safety of the food they produce. The implementation of hazard analysis and control principles (HACCP) and the observance of hygiene rules must ensure this safety. This is in line with the internationally accepted approach advocated by the Codex Alimentarius. In addition, provision is made for hygiene rules to be applied at all levels of the food chain, from primary production to delivery to the final consumer ('from the farm to the table').

The first proposal of the package (called Hygiene 1) aims at establishing a common basis for hygiene to be respected by all business operators. This proposal covers all food from animal origin as well as from plant origin and provides for the establishment of guides to good practice by the food sectors in order to give guidance to food business operators on food safety and the implementation of HACCP. It also gives flexibility for food businesses in remote areas, for traditional food production and for the implementation of HACCP in small businesses and provides for the registration of all food businesses by the competent authority.

The second proposal (called Hygiene 2) aims at establishing detailed hygiene rules to be respected by all food business operators handling food of animal origin (including eggs and egg products). This proposal applies to unprocessed and processed products of animal origin, but also to products of animal origin used in the manufacture of composite products made from products of plant origin and processed products of animal origin.

The third proposal (called Hygiene 3) lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin and more precisely on meat, molluscs, fishery products, milk and milk products. They will apply in addition to the general rules provided for in the proposal for a Regulation on official food and feed safety controls. The fourth proposal (called Hygiene 4) aims to define the measures that need to be taken in order to prevent the spread of animal diseases through products of animal origin. Finally, a separate fifth proposal (called Hygiene 5) to repeal the existing legislation with respect to the above subjects has been attached to complete the exercise.

The main provisions, which will affect the egg sector, are those contained in the two first proposals of this package.

\* At the level of primary production, egg producers will have to adopt good practice and take actions in order to ensure that food and food sources are produced under hygienic conditions. Their activities will have to be carried out in accordance with general hygienic rules specifically developed for primary production (Hygiene 1 - Annex I) and, where necessary, with the specific hygienic rules concerning the storage and transport of eggs (Hygiene 2 - Annex III, Section X, Chapter I). They will be subject to registration by the competent authority.

\* For all the following production stages, the implementation of the HACCP system will become mandatory. Collectors, packing centres and establishments manufacturing egg products will have to put in place, implement and maintain permanent procedures based on the HACCP principles to verify that the products they place on the market are safe. To that end, they may use guides or codes to good practice developed to serve as support tools for the operations they carry out.

In addition, they will have to comply with general and specific hygienic rules:

\* the general hygiene rules (Hygiene 1 - Annex II) refer to requirements with which, in particular, the infrastructure and the equipment used in all food businesses will have to comply;

\* the specific hygiene rules (Hygiene 2 - Annex III, Section X, Chapters I and II) simplify the requirements laid down in Decision 94/371/EC (see point 4.1) and in Directive 89/437/EEC on hygiene and health problems affecting the production and placing on the market of egg products.

- From a general point of view, the marketing of products of animal origin produced in the Community will only be authorised if they have been processed entirely in establishments, which are registered, or, where necessary, approved by the competent authority. The activities of collectors, packing centres and establishments manufacturing egg products will be subject to approval. Similarly, the placing on the market of a product of animal origin handled in an establishment subject to approval will in principle only be authorised if it bears an identification mark indicating the approval number of the establishment. The draft common position of the Council reached in December 2002 on the specific hygiene rules provides that "an identification mark is not necessary for eggs in respect of which Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 lays down requirements concerning labelling or marking". It means that the register and identification of collectors and packing centres continues to be covered by common marketing standards;

- from a specific point of view, as regards eggs, the current requirements relating to the storage and transport of eggs are maintained in the proposal (Hygiene 2). Similarly, the maximum date for the delivery of eggs to consumer is still fixed at 21 days. However, the date of minimum durability is no more defined.

4.3. Washing of eggs

The practice of washing eggs of class A for human consumption is forbidden by the European Union legislation. A fresh egg of class A should be produced in a way that ensures it is fit for human consumption. Washed eggs should be downgraded. This is in contrast to certain third country attitudes, such as USA, Japan and Australia where washing of eggs is commonly practised.

Among the Member States, it is only in Sweden that table eggs are commonly washed, in order to meet a consumer preference. Even in other Member States, like UK and Italy, the consumers may have the idea that a washed egg is safer. This idea in the mind of consumers has emerged as a consequence of repeated food poisoning cases, caused by egg-borne Salmonella enteriditis and media campaigns on this subject. The increased use of alternative systems and the consequently higher percentage of non-cage eggs available on the market may produce a higher number of dirty eggs. These dirty eggs must be downgraded and sell at a lower price, which causes a loss of income to the producers. This explains why the washing of eggs still attracts interest.

Nevertheless, it should be taken into account that a cuticle membrane, that is an organic layer, covers the whole surface of an egg. Under normal conditions and good handling practices, the cuticle protects the egg against dehydration and offers a natural barrier to the common contaminants present in the flora that colonises the surface of the egg. The egg content can be contaminated in a vertical way, when the layer's ovaries or oviduct are infected, and in a horizontal way, when contaminants, originating for example from faecal material or dust in the nest, can get through the shell inside the egg. The washing of eggs cannot change the situation of a vertical transmission of contaminants. In case of a horizontal transmission, the cuticle offers a natural barrier and when not handled properly, damage of the cuticle can cause a higher fragility of the egg and the risk of contamination of its content rises. Risk of damage of the cuticle can be caused by:

- presence of water on the shell (also a simple condensation can damage the cuticle when the egg is packed wet),

- presence of iron in the wash water,

- faecal contamination on the shell and, in this case,

- physical brushing to remove the dirtiness,

- high pressure (while washing for example), etc.

For these reasons, the practice of cleaning eggs must be carried out very gently and carefully, to avoid the destruction of the natural cuticle and subsequent lowering of quality of the egg.

4.3.1. State of the art

The washing of table eggs of class A is not permitted by European legislation. Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 of 15 May 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs [4] states that "Grade 'A' eggs shall not be washed or cleaned by any other means before or after grading." Because of this provision, washed eggs must be downgraded to class B eggs but this practise is rarely applied within EU, with the exception of Sweden. The reluctance shown within EU to allow the practice of washing eggs comes from the possibility of deterioration of the cuticle, as described above.

[4] OJ L 121, 16.5.1991, p. 11.

The EU legislation provides for the merging of present class B and C eggs into class B and that, starting from 1 January 2004, class B eggs should not be sold as table eggs any longer. This creates a concern in Sweden where the washing of eggs is a common habit and certain consumers' preference goes in favour of buying washed eggs.

In countries where egg washing is permitted, this practise is seen as a fairly low risk operation.

Nowadays, the practice of egg washing and equipment available on the market make the whole practise more accountable than before. The current commercial egg-washing machines are friendlier on the egg.

Currently, the commercial general process for egg washing can be divided into four stages:

1. wetting

2. washing

3. rinsing and

4. drying.

5. The normal grading and packing operation as carried out in installations not using washing would then follow.

The cost affordable by medium and large-sized packing centres, with an insignificant increase of the egg price. The costs are estimated at EUR 0,01 per egg washed and could be considered negligible when the consumer is ready to pay for it.

4.3.2. Developments in Sweden

The washing of eggs has been going on in Sweden for the past forty years. The Swedish consumer attitude is to prefer washed eggs, after a campaign of information, with a strong demand upon washing from catering sector, especially for hospitals. A little more than 50% of table eggs are washed in Sweden.

The Swedish authorities asked the European Commission to be allowed to continue to wash table eggs for their internal market. Commission services has held one working group meeting in May 2003 and a two-day visit to Sweden that took place on 5 and 6 June 2003, where the Commission was assisted by a senior expert on egg washing from UK. The visit gave an opportunity to see in-line egg washing machinery and to discuss egg washing with representative of the competent authority including National Food Administration inspectors, who were present throughout the visit. Visits were made to two egg packing centres - one did not wash eggs, the other did. The views expressed highlighted the range of opinions that have been a feature of the debate on egg washing. The egg product industry requires clean products and also the hatcheries wash or disinfect eggs. The Swedish base their reasons for washing table eggs on the possible risks of presence on the shell of parasites, bacteria, viruses, fungus, dust, urate. They see major risk when moving layers from traditional cages to floor production or enriched cages, where layers are more in contact with litter, manure and micro-organisms living in the environment. Moreover, they consider that unwashed eggs can cause a cross-contamination from the eggshell in the refrigerators and when handling eggs, with other food. At present, table eggs in Sweden are stored at controlled temperature. The chain for temperature control involves producers, lorries, packing stations, retailers and shops up to the consumer. Eggs are kept at the standardised temperature of 10-15°C.

There are few egg packers at the moment in Sweden, half of them not washing eggs and half washing eggs and marketing them as class B. Re-washing dirty eggs already washed is not permitted - this is an important safeguard.

In many ways, the systems operating are similar to those in place in countries outside the EU where washing is routinely undertaken.

The washing process itself appears to treat the eggs carefully, with just gentle brushing. However, there was inadequate information on the effect of the washing process upon the structure of the eggshell and the possibility of cuticle damage. Machine manufacturers generally do not hold this information because egg-washing practices are seen as being safe and well established in other countries. Whilst this second packing centre visited has data on shelf life of eggs (total bacterial counts of shells and egg content, Haugh Units and air space height) through the studies undertaken in conjunction with the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, recommendations were made for more direct ways of evaluating the effect of washing practices upon shell quality.

Discussions held highlighted that the competent authority was very supportive of a continuation of egg washing in Sweden. Certain retailers and institutional buyers (e.g. hospitals) insisted on washed eggs, regarding them as cleaner and safer. It was feared that the loss of washing would lead to some of these buyers switching to the use of egg products instead of shell eggs and that this market could then be affected by cheap imports from other countries. The procedures used by the NFA for inspections of packing premises were explained. At present, the number of in-line egg washing machines in Sweden is limited to only around 4-5 in total, but these pack a high percentage of eggs. Some 95% of the production industry uses white shelled eggs and only 5% are brown. Small amounts of dirt are more visible on white than on brown-shelled eggs.

In the absence of approval for egg washing on an organised basis, there will continue to be a huge temptation for Swedish producers to illegally wash eggs on the farm, using sub-standard equipment with inadequate safeguards. Prohibition of illegal washing is difficult to enforce and the temptation is likely to increase as thresholds for dirt get tougher and countries move towards non-cage production systems in which first quality eggs are more valuable but the likelihood of dirt contamination on shells is greater.

In conclusion, from a technical perspective, allowance should be made for table eggs to be washed on a voluntary basis in Sweden on the basis of a temporary derogation in common marketing standards. These washed eggs should conform with criteria of class A eggs and be labelled as "washed eggs" on the pack. This derogation should be limited to establishments already washing eggs at present and subject to the adoption of the strictest standards and controls including of prior approval of equipment used. This view is based on previous studies of the subject as well as the findings of the visit.

A long-standing argument against egg washing, and its authorisation all over European Union is that it may be used to cover up poor husbandry and hygiene standards on farms and packing centres. Egg washing should be available only to those who are prepared to adopt the highest standards both at farm and packing centre level. In recognition that poor washing can make an egg more vulnerable, only those businesses with a 'food hygiene' mentality should be permitted to wash eggs. This need not exclude smaller operators.

5. Marking of table eggs

5.1. Welfare Directive and Farm register

Directive 1999/74/EC lays down specific requirements for the protection of laying hens. It defines minimum standards for various systems of farming and allows the Member States to choose the most appropriate system or systems. Article 7 of this directive requires that every establishment covered by its scope shall be registered by the competent authority of the Member State and given a distinguishing number. This number is foreseen as the medium for tracing eggs placed on the market for human consumption.

The arrangements for the implementation of the registration are laid down in Commission Directive 2002/4/EC of 30 January 2002 [5]. The Member States were obliged to adopt the necessary legislation establishing a registration system at national level by 31 March 2003 and, by 31 May 2003, to register all establishments with 350 or more laying hens, allocating the distinguishing code to them.

[5] OJ L 30, 21.1.2002, p. 44.

In May 2003 formal notices according to Article 226 EC were sent to 13 Member States. By 17 June 2003, only four Member States had notified full transposition and two only partial transposition.

Directive 2002/4/EC defines the necessary data required for registration. Furthermore, it lays down the structure of the number, which shall be composed of a code for the farming method as defined in the marketing standards (1 = free range, 2 = barn, 3 = cage), two digit letter ISO code for the Member State and an identification of the establishment. Regarding the last element, Member States are free to use already existing registration numbers, used for other purposes.

5.2. Marking of table eggs

5.2.1. Eggs produced in the EU

Detailed rules for the stamping of class A eggshell with "a code designating the producer's distinguishing number and permitting the farming method to be identified", according to Article 7(1)(a), be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90, i.e. by Commission implementing Regulation following the Management Committee procedure.

The Commission will therefore propose amendments to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs.

These will, regarding the use of the farm code, the indication of the farming method and other related matters, concern the following points in particular:

- farm code and other indications on eggs:

The farm code as defined by Directive 2002/4/EC must be stamped on eggs. Apart from this compulsory code the indication of the farming method in full on eggs should be optional;

- an explanation of the farm code may be given on the pack (inside or outside);

- the main question is the place of stamping table eggs, at farm or in the packing centre. Stamping at the farm has the obvious advantage that the origin of the eggs is clearly identifiable and later "mistakes" (fraudulent practices) are avoided. On the other hand, cost and handling problems are becoming more important on smaller units. Furthermore, farm stamping covers all eggs and not only table eggs (80% of total production) while "double" stamping will also happen (farm: code; packing centre: dates).

It is therefore appropriate to consider a flexible approach i.e. provide the option to stamp at farm or packing centre where in the latter case additional conditions regarding separation of individual suppliers should be laid down. This corresponds to the majority view expressed in the expert groups by representatives of all groups and doesn't hinder the use and further development of certification schemes based on and promoting farm stamping of eggs;

- in order to improve the traceability of eggs in case of sales at weekly markets, it is proposed to repeal the derogation to exempt the farmers' sales at local markets from the labelling provisions of Article 7(1)(a). In fact, experience has shown that such sales are often not limited to the farmers' own production and local authorities are not in a position to stop such fraudulent practices. To help the correct application of marketing standards at local market, it should be further proposed that:

- ungraded eggs leaving packing centres to other packing centres shall always be stamped with the farm code,

- all ungraded eggs traded between Member States must be stamped with the farm code.

5.2.2. Imported eggs

The Code stamping of table eggs marketed in the Community applies to imported eggs as well. Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 provides that the Commission shall evaluate the labelling methods in force in exporting third countries.

Depending upon the findings two types of codes are envisaged:

- if in certain countries procedures are equivalent to Community rules, imported eggs may be given a distinguishing code as referred to in Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90;

- if procedures are not considered to be equivalent a distinguishing code shall be given enabling the unspecified nature of the farming method and the country of origin to be identified.

The detailed rules for stamping imported eggs will be laid down in the Commission's implementing Regulation.

The control of the compliance with these rules should be left to the national competent authorities in charge of monitoring the compliance with the relevant health and veterinary rules. In fact EU veterinary legislation regarding imports of eggs in shell from third countries is not yet fully harmonised. It is left to Member States to approve packing stations in EU-approved third countries from which eggs in shell may be imported into the respective Member State.

Table 6 shows the list of third countries from which eggs in shell were imported during the last three years 2000-2002. Most of these imports were for inward processing. For certain imports under "normal" regime cif prices seem to indicate other than hen table eggs (Mexico: special pathogen free fertilised eggs; USA: hatching eggs; China, Taiwan, Singapore: quail eggs).

Taking this into account the Commission has written to the following 10 third countries asking for information on egg grading and labelling rules, criteria for farming methods and farm registers operated: Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Norway, Switzerland, USA, Canada, Israel, PR China.

By 20 June 2003 had replied: Czech Republic, Lithuania, Switzerland, Israel.

Lithuania and Israel have declared that their shell egg export to the EU concern eggs for processing. Switzerland has indicated that in 2002 no exports of eggs to EU were registered and that in view of the high production costs compared to those in the Community it is not likely that commercial exports will take place.

Farm register exists in Switzerland and Israel. Lithuania is finalising the preparation of the procedure for the registration of egg farms according to Directive 2002/4/EC, which is planned to enter into force in June 2003. In Switzerland (no caged hens) and Israel, table eggs must be stamped with the country of origin (CH) or the name or trademark of the approved contractor (packing centre) and the weight category (Israel). Stamping the farming method or producer code is not compulsory in both countries.

It results from the documentation so far received from four countries, that only Lithuania would fully qualify for full equivalence in conformity with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 provided that implementation of the Directive 2002/4/EC is achieved by 1 January 2004. Further information is requested from Czech Republic regarding some questions outstanding (type of farming and farm register) as well as from Hungary and Poland which have so far not replied.

6. Recommendations and proposals

Having examined consumption trends as well as the questions of egg hygiene, washing and marking the Commission recommends the following steps and measures to be undertaken

1. In order both to improve traceability of eggs and information of consumers the stamping of table eggs with a code designating the producer's distinguishing number and permitting the farming method to be identified should be implemented as from 1 January 2004 as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 5/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90.

2. In order to facilitate control of egg sales in local markets, also eggs sold by producers from their own production in these markets should be stamped.

3. Washing of table eggs under strict surveillance should be authorised for a transitional period of three years for packing establishments which on 1 June 2003 had been approved to this end. The European Food Safety Authority should prepare a comprehensive scientific report on washing of table eggs by 31 December 2005.

4. The Commission will promote campaigns run by professional organisations aiming at information of consumers about the new rules for egg marking.

5. The Commission will adapt Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 with a view to provide, on the one hand, for sufficient flexibility in particular for small producers on the question where eggs should be stamped (farm or packing centre) and, on the other hand, for additional guarantees to prevent fraudulent practices in trade at the level of producers, packers and wholesalers.

6. The Commission will also propose adaptations to Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 concerning identification marking of establishments (collectors, packing centres) and will take the necessary measures to avoid any overlapping between marketing standards and future Community rules on hygiene in particular as regards the approval of such establishments.

&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;

&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;

&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;

&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;

&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;

&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;

&gt;TABLE POSITION&gt;

&gt;REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC&gt;

&gt;REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC&gt;

[Top](#document1)