Economic Affairs Committee

To the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural
Development, Dacian Cioloş
COURTESY TRANSLATION

Town/city and date
Subject:
Our reference:

The Hague, 1 July 2014
Letter concerning the political dialogue on the EU proposal for organic production
and labelling COM(2014) 180
2014Z00486/2014D13817

Dear Mr Cioloş,
The Standing Committee on Economic Affairs of the Dutch House of Representatives has received the
EU’s proposal for organic production and labelling COM(2014) 180. The Committee has carried out a
subsidiarity test on the proposal, and this test produced a positive result with regard to subsidiarity.
Nevertheless, a number of the parliamentary groups have comments and questions as part of the
political dialogue with the European Commission. We will now continue by outlining those questions and
comments. The Committee on Economic Affairs looks forward to your response and would very much
appreciate your answer at the earliest possible opportunity, but at the latest within three months of the
date of this letter.
The members of the VVD parliamentary group have considered the EU’s proposals on organic
production and labelling COM(2014) 179/180. They are critical of these proposals and have a number
of questions and comments with regard to the following areas. These members understand and share
the objectives of the European Commission with regard to promoting the efficiency of the internal
market and simplifying the relevant legislation. This should apply not only to organic agriculture, but
also to conventional agriculture. However, the members of the VVD parliamentary group are not
convinced that this regulation will have this effect. Improving the existing policy rather than opting for
new regulations would, in the opinion of the VVD representatives, be preferable. They support the
efforts of the Dutch government in this regard.
Additionally, the members of the VVD parliamentary group share the opinion of the cabinet that the
proposal does not meet the proportionality test. This is because the new regulations leave no room for
national provisions, which is not acceptable to the members of the VVD parliamentary group. The
group would like to see more of a balance, with sufficient scope for input at the national level. They are
also critical of the details of the regulations.
Firstly, parallel production would apparently no longer be possible or would be severely limited. The
members of the VVD parliamentary group point out that this restriction may have a negative effect on
the scale of organic production activities. This would apply both to companies that produce
predominantly organic products as well as those that produce conventional products. Secondly, the
members of the VVD parliamentary group point out that tightening the rules on so many points will
give rise to rigidity, which will not make organic production more attractive. The use of non-organic
ingredients would be restricted further, a 100% requirement is introduced for laying hens and breeding
hens in the poultry sector and an increase in the requirement that 60% of feed for pigs and poultry

House of Representatives of the States General
Postbus 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl

must come from the same region. These requirements would either result in significantly higher costs
or are simply not feasible. According to members of the VVD parliamentary group, requirements for
organic production should be achievable and realistic. Longer transitional periods are also required.
Thirdly, the members of the VVD parliamentary group point out that there would be an increase in the
administrative burden for farmers. They would like to ask whether agreements can be made with
respect to this regulatory burden, so that it does not increase.
The members of the VVD parliamentary group believe that the proportionality principle would be
breached with respect to the Netherlands. The proposed legislation would lead to a greater regulatory
burden and limit the opportunities for farmers engaged in both organic farming and conventional
farming. In its current form, the proposed regulations cannot count on the support of members of the
VVD parliamentary group.
The members of the PvdA parliamentary group believe that organic production requires Europeanlevel regulation. The priority for such regulations should be to ensure that the production of healthy
and safe food becomes genuinely sustainable. Concerning the substance of the two proposals, the
members of the PvdA parliamentary group would like to comment on proportionality, the large number
of delegated acts and implementing acts, and the high level of detail of the proposals.
It will be necessary to adapt the legislation and also to tackle fraud. Consumers need to be confident
that products that are labelled as organic on the shelves are in fact organic. It must be clear for
consumers what ‘organic’ means and they must be able to be confident that a product has been
produced by organic means. Fraud must be tackled, but this needs to be done with rules that actually
work against fraudsters and not against organic farmers who are working hard to make good honest
products.
The members of the PvdA parliamentary group point out that the text of the regulation states at many
points that the Commission will adopt delegated acts. In practical terms, this means that power will
shift from the member states to the Commission. In a sector as diverse as agriculture, which includes
so many different sub-sectors even in the Netherlands alone, a generalised regulatory framework is
less appropriate. The members of the PvdA parliamentary group fear that detailed one-size-fits-all
regulations from Europe will not be sufficiently effective because of lack of flexibility. The goals of these
regulations are clear and logical, but the group has some reservations about how these goals will be
achieved. The members indicate that the delegated acts concerning production requirements should be
transformed into implementing acts. This relates to production requirements for plant-based products,
animal products, the production of yeast, seaweed and wine, processed food production and the
labelling of feed for livestock and of other products. (9 delegated acts, Article 10.3, 11.2, 12.2, 12.3,
13.2, 14.2, 15.2, 16, 21.4).
It is possible that the new regulations will be counterproductive. The PvdA parliamentary group points
out, for example, that the current possibility of engaging in both organic farming and conventional
farming within the same enterprise (‘parallel production’) would no longer be permitted under these
proposals. They fear that banning parallel production would actually impede the transition to organic
farming, although the proposals are in fact meant to encourage exactly this. Additionally, the members
of the PvdA parliamentary group believe that the administrative burden for businesses would increase
under these proposals.
An example of where they go too far is the rule about maintaining the action value (Article 20 of the
proposal). Organic products that have residues of unauthorized additives, cleaning agents or pesticides
above 0.01 mg/kg would be rejected under the proposal of the European Commission. It is beyond
dispute that products must be safe. However, because organic products are grown, processed and
transported in a non-organic world, contamination is occasionally possible. The members of the PvdA
parliamentary group would therefore like to ask the members of the Commission to keep the process in
mind. Fraud will not be prevented simply by making requirements tighter, but rather through a
harmonized EU approach to sampling, interpreting test results and sanctions. The organic sector itself
has a clear interest in effective arrangements in this area and has some good ideas about alternatives
that would involve adapting the current rules rather than adopting a completely new approach.
The members of the SP parliamentary group would like to know what the European Commission
makes of the substantial opposition to the proposal from across the entire organic sector and
agricultural sector. What was the process that led to this regulation? Who had an influence and at
which point? How transparent was the process? Does the Commission share the view that cooperation
with and support from IFOAM is crucial to any new regulations relating to organic production? Why was
coordination with IFOAM not possible or why did it fail to get off the ground?
House of Representatives of the States General
Postbus 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl

The revised and improved version of the previous directive only entered into force a few years ago.
What was it that convinced the Commission that those regulations were doomed to fail? Why was the
conclusion drawn prematurely that they had to be thrown out entirely and a completely new set of
regulations be introduced? This is bad for all organic businesses and for all conventional farmers who
may want to switch to organic, because a long period of uncertainty is bound to follow the introduction
of a new directive. Our members believe this would be bad for businesses.
Will the Commission consider improving the old directive rather than introducing a whole new set of
regulations?
The members of the SP parliamentary group also see an undesirable transfer of national powers to the
powers of the Commission as a result of the regulation. The main reasons for this are the more than 20
delegated acts, which will restrict freedom of action at the national level and effectively hand a carte
blanche to the Commission. The delegated acts often relate to details that do not belong in a European
legal text, but should be left to the organic sector itself. Why should the Commission be given more
power over the composition of organic farmers groups? Would such issues not be dealt with better
under a bottom-up approach by which organic farmers can themselves make arrangements with the
other parties involved?
Our members also believe that not enough consideration has been given to the sometimes very
different circumstances in the various member states with regard to climate and soil. National freedom
would in fact be curtailed by these regulations. For example, countries would no longer be able to set
their own production rules. The Netherlands uses these rules in relation to organic pet food, for
example. Currently, many matters are settled between the Commission and the member states via
SCOF, the Standing Committee on Organic Farming. Why should this situation be changed and more
power be handed to the Commission?
The members of the SP parliamentary group are worried about the ban on parallel production. They
fear that this would mean that fewer conventional farmers would switch to organic farming.
Another problem is the tightening of residue standards. Would this mean that organic farmers whose
crops become unintentionally contaminated with unwanted pesticides or genetically modified material
from neighbouring fields, would then have to surrender their certificate? Would this not undermine the
process-based approach to organic production?
The members of the CDA parliamentary group are opposed to the proposal on organic production
COM(2014) 180. The members of the CDA parliamentary group believe that the Commission’s proposal
will grant the Commission unnecessary additional powers. The objectives of removing obstacles to the
development of organic farming, ensuring fair competition and improving consumer confidence could
also be achieved by the gradual improvement of the existing regulations. Member states may also
achieve these objectives by working together; a shift of powers from the national level to the European
level via the introduction of 20 delegated acts is not necessary for this. The introduction of this large
number of delegated acts would serve to reduce national oversight. With regard to tackling fraud, the
CDA envisages a greater role for the European Union. Consumers must be confident that the
regulations relating to organic farming in all member states are upheld and that fraud is being
combated.
The members of the ChristenUnie (Christian Union) parliamentary group note that European
regulations on organic production date from 1991 and have not thoroughly been revised since. These
members welcome the fact that the legislation is being scrutinized. However, they ask the Commission
to indicate why it has opted for a new regulation. These members would prefer an update of existing
legislation. This would prevent the market for organic produce, a growing market, from being
hampered by a lengthy legislative process. How will the Commission ensure that the organic sector is
not held back and that the process of innovation in the sector continues?
The members of the Christian Union parliamentary group believe that the freedom of action of member
states would be limited by the large number of delegated acts. In addition, the number of delegated
acts would limit the opportunities to take account of the diversity of production conditions in each
member state at the national level. Does the Commission agree with these members that account
should be taken of the diversity of circumstances? If so, why has it chosen to include this large amount
of delegated acts in its proposal? Why is it necessary for the Commission to regulate to this degree of
detail? Is the Commission prepared to allow member states the scope to limit the number of delegated
acts or convert these into implementing acts?

House of Representatives of the States General
Postbus 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl

The members of the Christian Union parliamentary group note that the Commission has imposed strict
criteria on the organic sector, but does not appear to give any time for the sector to adapt to these
step by step. Why did the Commission not opt for a more gradual approach, allowing businesses to
follow a growth path towards the desired level of ambition?
The members of the ChristenUnie parliamentary group note that an important aspect of the regulation
is that parallel production in one company would no longer be permissible. Many business owners are
opting to switch over to organic production gradually, but this regulation would prevent them from
doing so. Does the Commission share the view that this would effectively constitute a barrier
preventing entrepreneurs from switching to organic production? If so, can the Commission indicate how
this obstacle can be removed?
The members of the SGP parliamentary group have major objections regarding the European
Commission’s proposal for a new regulation on organic production and the labelling of organic products
(COM(2014) 180). They note that the European Commission wants to limit severely the number of
derogations, and that it proposes tightening a number of standards and transferring a large number of
delegated and implementing acts into its own area of competence. They are of the opinion that
member states and national sectoral associations will not be left with sufficient scope to encourage
organic production by adapting to the national and regional circumstances in which production takes
place and to national bottlenecks. They cite two examples. They object to the stricter requirements for
basic materials for seeds, breeding cattle and cattle feed (100% organic). This tightening of the
regulations does not take any account of the national and regional availability of these basic materials,
although this is of essential importance. They also object to the requirement that one business may not
be involved in both organic and conventional methods of farming. Permitting parallel production is
crucial for the Netherlands, in order to encourage and facilitate the switch from conventional to organic
farming. The members fear that if these regulations are enforced, a number of companies will be
forced out of business. This is surely not the intended effect. The members of the SGP parliamentary
group want to ask the European Commission to allow member states more scope to develop policies
that will stimulate and facilitate organic production in an appropriate and effective way. In this context,
they ask why the European Commission has not opted for a gradual tightening of the current
regulations.
The members of the Partij voor de Dieren (Party for the Animals) parliamentary group evaluate the
proposal on organic production negatively in terms of subsidiarity and proportionality. The
Commission’s proposal will mean that the Commission itself will accrue more competencies, and the
members of the Partij voor de Dieren parliamentary group believe that member states can arrange
these matters better themselves. The group is of the opinion that the large number of delegated acts is
undesirable. In addition, the proposal does not take into account the differences between the various
member states, including climatic differences within the EU. The members of the group support the
idea that the derogations that the organic sector currently has, should disappear. They wish to abolish
the dehorning of calves and the use of non-organic feed and ingredients as quickly as possible, and
they also believe that it is a good thing to tighten legislation on these points. However, the deadlines
that the Commission is now proposing will have a seriously disadvantageous effect on the organic
sector and the members of the PvdD parliamentary group cannot support that. The new regulations will
make regular and organic production within the same business almost impossible, and this will make it
extremely difficult to achieve the ambition of 100% organic basic materials because propagators
improvers and breeders are often mixed companies. The increase in the administrative burden means
that they can be expected to give up the organic part of their businesses.
The members of the Partij voor de Dieren parliamentary group believe it is very important to give
strong support to the organic sector because it provides a sustainable alternative to intensive
agriculture and livestock farming, which takes place at the expense of humans, animals and the
environment. Moreover, in the opinion of the members of the PvdD, it would be better to retain the
regulatory power that is now in the hands of the member states at that level. The proposal is also far
too wide-ranging, in the opinion of the group, and the transitional periods are much too short. The
prohibition on supplementary national regulations – which mean that in the Netherlands, for example,
pet food can currently be certified as organic – is also a violation of the political freedom of the member
states. The members of the Party for the Animals parliamentary group fear that the organic sector will
be very hard hit if this proposal is put through. The group is also concerned about the impact of this
proposal on organic farmers in developing countries. The current import regime is only 4 years old and
is functioning well. The group does not see any need to change these rules now.

House of Representatives of the States General
Postbus 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl

The Partij voor de Dieren asks the Commission to withdraw the current proposal and return with new
proposals to modernize the existing regulations, rather than introducing completely new legislation.

Yours faithfully,
Chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Affairs

M.I. Hamer

Explanatory note
The House of Representatives consist of 150 members, currently divided into 14 political groups, 5
of which have contributed to the letter above:
- People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), number of seats: 41
- Labour Party (PvdA), number of seats: 38
- Socialist Party, number of seats: 15
- Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), number of seats: 13
- Christian Union (CU), number of seats: 5
- Reformed Political Party (SGP), number of seats: 3
- Party for the Animals, number of seats: 2

House of Representatives of the States General
Postbus 20018
2500 EA The Hague
T. +31 (0)70-3182211
E. cie.ez@tweedekamer.nl