23 Descriptions of organic produce
| (24244)
5488/03
COM(03) 14
| Draft Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto in agricultural products and foodstuffs.
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 16 January 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 20 August 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 11 February 2003 and SEM of 9 September 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | Towards the end of the year
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
23.1 Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91[44]
dealing with organic agricultural production includes a stipulation
that only foodstuffs produced in accordance with the provisions
set out in the Regulation may be designated as organic (or the
equivalent term in other Member States), the intention being to
give such produce a distinctive profile and thereby ensure fair
competition between producers.
The current proposal
23.2 According to the Commission, the intention was that this
protection should include the usual derivatives or diminutives
of the terms in question, whether they are used alone or combined,
and independently of which language is used, and it now intends
to remove any ambiguity on this point by amending the Regulation
to make this condition explicit. Given that organic production
in other Member States is described by such terms as "biologic"
and "ecologic", the main effect of the proposal would
be to reserve descriptions such as "bio" and "eco"
for organic produce, including that sold in the UK.
23.3 In addition, the proposal would make three other
changes to Regulation 2092/91, in that it would:
· extend
the inspection system, which is currently confined to operators
who produce, prepare or import organic produce, to all those handling
it (except retailers who simply sell it direct to the public),
thus bringing within its scope wholesalers who sell on produce
without carrying out any operation on it;
· modify the
provision requiring inspection authorities not to disclose information,
so as to allow them to exchange it among themselves where this
is necessary for enforcement purposes; and
· stipulate that
the Community logo indicating that products are covered by a specific
inspection scheme may be applied to those imported from third
countries only when inspections have been carried out by a body
which has been supervised by a public authority.
The Government's view
23.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 10 February
2003 (which was based on an unofficial text), the then Minister
of State (Environment) at the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Mr Michael Meacher) said that the last two
of these amendments did not raise any particular difficulties,
and that the Government also generally welcomed the proposed extension
of the inspection system, subject to further consideration of
any additional costs that would arise, and clarification of the
impact on caterers who sell organic produce to the final consumer
other than in prepacks. However, on the main amendment proposed,
he pointed out that the existing provisions of Regulation 2092/91
have been interpreted in the UK as not prohibiting the use of
diminutives such as "bio" and "eco" on conventional
produce sold here, because they appear sufficiently far from the
term "organic" as to be unlikely to lead to confusion
in the minds of consumers. As the Commission proposal would in
future reserve these terms for organic produce, it would restrict
manufacturers' scope for labelling conventional products, such
as live yoghurts. The Minister also said that the Government
would aim to produce a Regulatory Impact Assessment by the end
of March 2003, and we therefore decided to await this before forming
a view on the proposal.
23.5 In the event, we have only recently received
a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment under cover of a supplementary
Explanatory Memorandum of 9 September 2003 from the current Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State (Mr Ben Bradshaw). The latter makes it
clear that there is little support for the UK position on the
use of diminutives, largely because there is a real possibility
of confusion in many Member States arising from the use of the
terms in question. Consequently, the Minister does not see any
real prospect of heading off this part of the proposal. On the
other hand, he says that changes have been made to the proposed
coverage of the inspection system, with those (such as supermarket
distribution centres and traders supplying retailers) operating
akin to wholesalers being made subject to control, whilst leaving
retailers and caterers selling organic produce to be dealt with
by national consumer protection legislation. He adds that further
thought will be needed to ensure that the inspection arrangements
actually put in place are proportionate and take full account
of existing audit and traceability systems, and that there will
need to be a suitable transitional period.
23.6 The Minister has also provided a partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment, which suggests that there would be a one-off
cost of around £1 million to industry (equivalent to £25,000
per business) arising from the need to re-label conventional products
currently described as "bio", but that it is expected
this would be spread over a transitional period. The Assessment
also suggests that the ongoing costs for those newly subject to
the inspection system would range from £1,000 to £10,000,
depending upon turnover and the inspection effort needed, arising
from the need to register with an organic inspection body.
Conclusion
23.7 We note that, whilst the main part of this
proposal is intended to remove the confusion in other Member States
over the use of terms such as "bio" and "eco",
its effect in the UK will be to prohibit their use on conventional
products, such as live yoghurts. In other words, a measure designed
to benefit consumers may well have the opposite effect, at least
in this country, and at the same time impose additional re-labelling
costs on manufacturers. That said, we also note that the Government's
reservations have received little support within the Council,
and that it sees no real prospect of heading off this part of
the proposal, its main aim now being to negotiate a suitable transitional
period over which those costs can be spread. Given this background,
we do not think any further consideration is called for, and we
are therefore clearing the proposal. However, we think it right
to draw its unintended consequences to the attention of the House.
44 OJ No. L.198, 22.7.91, p.1. Back
|
