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

1.1.Political context

1.2.Legal context

2.Problem definition

2.1.What is/are the problems?

2.2.What are the problem drivers?

2.3.How likely is the problem to persist?

3.Why should the EU act?

3.1.Legal basis

3.2.Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action

3.3.Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action

4.Objectives: What is to be achieved?

4.1.General objectives

4.2.Specific objectives

4.2.1.    Streamline and simplify EU marketing standards    

4.2.2.    Address new needs of stakeholders    

4.2.3.    Add more sustainability criteria    

4.2.4.    Why certain marketing standards are planned to be revised while others not    

4.3.Consistency with other EU policies

5.What are the available policy options?

6.What are the impacts of the policy options?

6.1.Likely impact in terms of contributions to the SDGs

6.2.Likely impacts on fundamental rights

6.3.Likely impacts on digitalisation

7.How do the options compare?

8.Preferred option

9.How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated?

10.Assessment of individual revisions

10.1.Marketing standards for cider and perry

10.1.1.    Problem definition    

10.1.2.    Options to achieve the objectives    

10.1.3.    Impacts of the different policy options    

10.1.4.    Comparison of options    

10.1.5.    Preferred option    

10.1.6.    Monitoring and evaluation of impacts    

10.2.Reduced-sugar fruit juices

10.2.1.    Problem definition    

10.2.2.    Options to achieve the objectives    

10.2.3.    Impacts of the different policy options    

10.2.4.    Comparison of options    

10.2.5.    Preferred option    

10.2.6.    Monitoring and evaluation of impacts    

10.3.Sugar levels in jams

10.3.1.    Problem definition    

10.3.2.    Options to achieve the objectives    

10.3.3.    Impacts of the different policy options    

10.3.4.    Comparison of options    

10.3.5.    Preferred option    

10.3.6.    Monitoring and evaluation of impacts    

10.4.Marketing standards for honey

10.4.1.    Problem definition    

10.4.2.    Options to achieve the objectives    

10.4.3.    Impacts of the different policy options    

10.4.4.    Comparison of options    

10.4.5.    Preferred option    

10.4.6.    Monitoring and evaluation of impacts    

10.5.Marketing standards for foie gras

10.5.1.    Problem definition    

10.5.2.    Options to achieve the objectives    

10.5.3.    Impacts of the different policy options    

10.5.4.    Comparison of options    

10.5.5.    Preferred option    

10.5.6.    Monitoring and evaluation of impacts    

Annex 1: Procedural information

1.Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references

2.Organisation and timing

3.Consultation of the RSB

4.Evidence, sources and quality

Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation (Synopsis report)

1.Consultation strategy

2.Roadmap

3.Public consultation

4.Written consultation of MSs

5.Technical workshop

Annex 3: Who is affected and how?

1.Practical implications of the initiative

2.Summary of costs and benefits

3.Relevant sustainable development goals

Annex 4: Analytical methods

Annex 5: Legal bases and legislation for marketing standards

Annex 6: Mapping of relevant other initiatives

1.The Farm to Fork strategy

2.The Circular Economy Action Plan

Annex 7: Illustration of the intervention logic

Annex 8: Strategic foresight for the revision

Annex 9: Other sectoral initiatives

A.Horticultural products

1.    Grouping existing fruit & vegetables legislation    

2.    Extending origin labelling to some F&V products that are currently exempted    

3.    Trimmed and cut fruit and vegetables    

4.    ‘Ugly’ fruit and vegetables    

5.    ‘Force majeure’ exemption    

6.    Sugar content in fruit nectars    

7.    Use of the term ‘marmalade’    

B.Animal products

1.    Dual use of outdoor areas in free-range production systems for eggs    

2.    Inconsistency between egg standards and organic rules    

3.    Durability of eggs    

4.    Obligatory marking of eggs on the farm    

5.    Optional reserved terms to label types of farming in poultrymeat production    

6.    Limits for water content in poultry    

7.    Downgrading of whole batches of poultrymeat during inspections    

8.    Update definitions of poultry products    

9.    ORTs for production systems other than poultry    

C.Arable crops and olive oil

1.    Allowing the sales of bulk olive oil    

2.    Sales descriptions of plant-based preparations    

3.    Indication of the country of origin for pulses    

List of tables

Table 1 - Overview of problems and objectives    

Table 2 - Overview of specific objectives pursued by individual initiatives    

Table 3 - Mapping of the achievement of the specific objectives    

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

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

Table 6 - Final timeline of the impact assessment process    

Table 7 - Changes compared to the earlier draft    

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

Table 9 - Overview of benefits – preferred option    

Table 10 - Overview of costs – preferred option    

List of figures

Figure 1 - Overview of problem drivers and consequences    

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

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

Figure 4: Types of respondents    

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

Figure 6: Familiarity with sectoral standards    

Figure 7: Provision of feedback on sectoral standards    

Figure 8: Sustainable agricultural products should do the following…    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 16: Revisions likely affect me or my organisation…    

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

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

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

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

Figure 21: EU marketing standards for agricultural products benefit mostly    

Figure 22: EU marketing standards for agricultural products benefit mostly    

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

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

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

Figure 26: Intervention logic for the revision of EU marketing standards    

Figure 27: Mapping of megatrends for the revision of EU marketing standards    

Glossary

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 criteria 8 . 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 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.

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 products 14 , 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 analysis 15 . 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 1234/2007 16 . 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 agenda 17 , 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) programme 18 .

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.

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 translate 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.

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 megatrends 19 ; 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.

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 methods 20 . 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 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 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 costly 22 . 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 schemes 23 . 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).

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).

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 1960s 25 . 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 rules 26 . International marketing standards date back even further, to the early 1950s 27 . 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 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.

Table 1 - Overview of problems and objectives

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

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.

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 products 28 , 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 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 Plan 29 , 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 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 (SDG 31 ). 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).

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 tools 32 . 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

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

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

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

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 dialogue on all matters relating to the CAP, particularly in their configurations to discuss issues relating to arable crops and animal products 33 .

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 briefing 34 , 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 perry 35 ) 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).

In terms of market size, Euromonitor data indicates that the market for cider and perry in EU28 in 2019 was about EUR 6.2 billion 36  (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 flavours 38 . 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 Germany 39 . 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 fruits 40 .

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 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 alcopops 41 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 them 44 favours the setting up of a basic marketing standard, while the others 45 ask for more ambitious rules (minimum percentage of apple/pear juice) to be established.

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 characteristics 46   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 product 48 :

§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 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 Regulation 49 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 products 50 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 overpressing 51 );

§‘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.

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;

-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;

-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;

-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/ pears 53 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 benefits 54 :

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

ofacilitate the functioning of the cider/perry supply chain;

ofacilitate business to business transactions;

oreduce barriers to trade, within and outside the EU;

oreduce misleading information related to the production of cider/perry, and therefore provide better information to consumers;

olimit 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:

ocreating value for the sector by way of market segmentation;

osupporting growth of the sector and more easily competing against other alcoholic beverages (beer, alcopops);

oallowing 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 secondary processing industries producing industrial cider/perry) between producer and consumer 55 . 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 SMEs 56 . These stand to benefit from harmonised and detailed rules in the EU, especially if such rules allow a 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 employment 58 . 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 production 59 . 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 are often rustic and adapted to their environment 60 . While silvopastoral systems offer opportunities as carbon-sinks 61 , they contribute to the objectives of the European Climate Law 62 . 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 perry 64 , 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.

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.

Coherence

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 evaluation 65 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 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 rules 67 .

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 together 69 was estimated at 17.6 litres per year in the EU28 70 . In terms of market 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 kg 73 . 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 that 74 .

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 concentrates 75 . 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. 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 meet 77 . Brix means the sugar content of an aqueous solution.

There is growing consumer demand for fruit juices with reduced naturally-occurring sugar content 78 while the juice producing sector recognises that the “ongoing authenticity, organoleptic quality and natural characteristics of the juices” need to be preserved 79 . 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 acid 83 . According to juice manufacturers, this list is not limitative and the sector is actively developing a number of other potential innovative 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 services 84 .

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 market 86 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.

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 sugar 87 .

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 food” would have to comply with the authorisation procedure laid down in Regulation (EU) No 2015/2283 on novel foods 88 .

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 sugar 89 , 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 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 France 90 or will soon be in the rest of the EU 91 – 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.

Processing the fruit juice to reduce its sugar content has an additional cost for the manufacturer 92 . 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 juice 93 , 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 SMEs 94 and larger players 95 . 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 process 96 . Other emerging processes to produce reduced-sugar fruit juices have just been or are about to be developed and will soon start being commercialised 97 . 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 range 98 .

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 F2F 99 . 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 market 100 .

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 level 101 , and that the state of science and technology to date allows to verify this so as to authenticate the product 102 .

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-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 reduced 103 . In the case of Cidou’s ‘Désucrés’, the FR authorities have been able to verify the technology used and the authenticity of the product 104 . 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 juices 105 . 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 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 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.

10.2.5.Preferred option

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).

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.

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 fruit juice concentrates, including free sugars consumed via processed products 107 . 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 sales 111 . In France 112 , 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 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 Germany 114 .

Marketing standards may not be the best or only tool to influence the level of consumption of free sugars-containing products. Nevertheless, some MSs 115 and stakeholders 116 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 Directive 117 . There is a call to act at the EU level 118 . 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 seek 119 .

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 lowering it 120 . Seven MSs have called for a lowering of the minimum sugar content in jams in the Jam Directive during the targeted consultation 121 . Seven MSs have already used the possibility to adopt a derogation to the minimum in their national legislation 122 . 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 MSs 123 nor from the sector 124 , 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 content 126 . 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 foods 127 . 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 jam 128 . Even though the Jam Directive requires a minimum amount of sugar, it also foresees the possibility that product with a 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 Italy 131 ). 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 consumers 132 .

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 sugars 133 .

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:

Option I: to remove the required minimum amount of sugar entirely in the Jam Directive 134 ;

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 revision 136 . 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 Directive 138 . 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 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 preservable 139 . 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 confirmed 140 . 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 consistency 141 .

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 costly 142 . 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 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 Israel 143 . 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 jams 145 . 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 jams 146 . 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.

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 little 147 . 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 market 148 . 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 markets 149 . 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.

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 yogurt 150 . 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 nudging 151 . Empowering consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable food choices is one of the objectives of the F2F strategy 152 . 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 life 153 . Jams with lower amount of sugar are de facto often specifically labelled as ‘to be kept in the refrigerator after opening’ (e.g. Italian legislation 154 ) 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 stable 155 , 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 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 like 156 . 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 chain 157 .

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 would have to be used to evaporate the excessive water 159 . 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 price 160 . 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 standards 161 . 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 standards 162 . 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. 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 degree 163 . 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 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.

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.

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 000t 165 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/year 166 , 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 questions 168 . 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 honey 169 . 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.

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 FIC 170 , 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 blends 171 . 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 blends 174 . 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:

§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 indication of all individual countries of origin (Member States and third countries)

§Option IV: obligatory indication of all 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 consultation 176 . 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 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. 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 meats 177 (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).

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. 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.

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.

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 expectations 179 . 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 year 180 . 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 billion 181 . The EU exports about 2,000 tonnes per year (10% of its production) with an export value of EUR 50 million 182 . 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, 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 standard 184 .

§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, 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 EuroFoieGras 186 , 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 enterprises 187 .

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 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 studies 188 . 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 scientists 189 , 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.

On the other hand, foie gras generates income in rural areas and is deemed a cultural heritage in some MSs. In France the Code Rural 190 , 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-feeding 191 . 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.

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.

10.5.5.Preferred option

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.

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

Interservice Group

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.

3.Consultation of the RSB

Table 7 - Changes compared to the earlier draft

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, Public consultation. Have Your Say. Brussels. European Commission. 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

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.

§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 2021 192 . 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.

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