EU denies egg labelling claims

The European Union has denied claims by Compassion in World Farming that it could be about to scrap quality legislation that requires eggs to be labelled with method of production.

CIWF claims the EU Commission is discussing the possibility of repealing the current law that requires eggs to be labelled either ’eggs from caged hens’ or ’free range’. The animal welfare pressure group has issued a statement saying it is "dismayed" that DG Agriculture (the agricultural department of the European Commission) may "shortly recommend" repeal of the legislation. CIWF said the legislation was "legislation that Compassion in World Farming and our supporters fought so hard to bring about. This would mark a devastating backward step for both animal welfare and consumer freedom – making it more difficult for us all to make informed choices about our food," said the group’s statement.

DG Agriculture has, however, denied that it has any such plans. The Ranger spoke to Michael Mann, spokesman for DG Agriculture. He said, "There is not a grain of truth in this. Why should we do anything with egg marketing labelling rules when they work so well." He said there were no plans to end production method labelling of eggs and he could not understand why CIWF had reached the conclusion it had.

Tom Vesey, chairman of the British Free Range Egg Producers’ Association, said that scrapping the labelling requirements would be disastrous. "I could not be more against the idea," he said. "What is the point of scrapping conventional cages and then scrapping the marking. Fraud would be almost impossible to prevent, as far as I am concerned. It would be a disaster."

The Conservative agriculture spokesman in Europe, MEP Neil Parish, has also offered his support for the existing system of labelling. "Any labelling system should be clear, honest and robust. Only then can consumers make informed choices as to the products they want to buy. The current system is fair and makes it clear when eggs have been produced from caged hens. I am not sure a voluntary system would do the same."

The CIWF says its statement follows a Green Paper issued by the European Commission on agricultural product quality policy, along with discussions and meetings it has had in Europe. When the Green Paper was issued in October last year, the Commission said it wanted to know if it had the "right instruments to facilitate quality and to help farmers communicate on the quality of their products."

The Commission said that EU farmers had to meet the challenges of consumer demand (providing the right product, in right quantities and of the right quality, at the right prices) and global competition.

"Quality is one of the EU’s strengths to compete on a global market and respond to consumer demand. That is why quality is a unique opportunity for farmers. The Commission decided to launch a reflection to improve the European quality policy. To do so, it wanted to first get the opinion of stakeholders. For that reason, the Commission released, on 15 October 2008, a Green Paper asking open questions on the different issues related to quality," said the Commission in a statement explaining the aims of the Green Paper.

More than 500 written responses were received to the consultation document from farmers, retailers, European interest group representatives, local authorities, consumers and NGOs.

The section in the European Commission Green Paper that appears to have raised concern is entitled ’Obligatory elements of marketing standards.’ The Commission has produced a summary of the views put forward during the consultation process. It appears to have received arguments in favour of both the existing compulsory regulations and of a move to a voluntary regime.

The Green Paper says compulsory classification schemes were introduced for reasons of market transparency - to allow buyers to compare the prices of known product classes or categories. The scheme for eggs requires that eggs must be sized in one of four size classes – XL, L, M and S – and be classified according to the farming method: cage, barn, free range or organic.

The Green Paper outlined the issues it wanted to explore. "The main issues are whether the rule is necessary to meet legitimate policy objectives, whether the costs in terms of red tape are proportionate and whether its application has unwanted consequences – such as inhibiting the marketing of innovative or uncommon products or the destruction of comestible produce."

The document posed a number of questions for consultation. It asked, "How does laying down product identities in marketing standards in EU legislation affect consumers, traders and producers? What are the benefits and drawbacks?" The Commission said the vast majority of respondents were in favour of keeping EU-level product identity definitions as they were.

The Green Paper also asked, "Should the retail sale of products that do meet hygiene and safety requirements, but do not meet the marketing standard for aesthetic or similar reasons be allowed? If so, should such products require specific information for the consumer?"

The Commission said that most respondents were in favour of allowing retail sales of such products, although a significant minority of farming organisations was against it. "They were afraid that it would define a lower quality standard vis-à-vis the current production and increase price pressure on quality products," said the Commission’s summary of responses.

Some respondents suggested that such products could be labelled ’non-standard products’ or ’intended for processing’. They could be sold under other names or on different display units and the harvest/picking date could be indicated.

The question that has possibly aroused the suspicions of Compassion in World Farming asked, "Could compulsory quality and size classifications be made optional as ’optional reserved terms’ ?" The Commission said responses were split over the need for such classifications to be compulsory or voluntary. National administrations, producers and processing operators favoured compulsory classification. Those who argued against a voluntary system said it would lead to a lack of information and a problem with market transparency. They said producers would be weakened. Those in favour of voluntary classification said it may open markets to new products and reduce costs.

Although DG Agriculture says it has no plans to abandon production method labelling on eggs, Compassion in World Farming insists that the Commission is discussing the possibility of switching to a voluntary scheme. "Compulsory labelling by method of production has been an important contributing factor in the decline in demand for battery eggs, meaning that fewer hens in the EU endure a life of confinement," said the statement issued by the group.

Peter Stevenson, CIWF’s chief policy advisor said, "The success of the labelling legislation has been largely due to the fact that it has been compulsory for all methods of production, including the lower welfare systems. This threat to EU labelling law is extremely disappointing. There is a consumer demand for clear and honest labelling. We must ensure this legislation is retained".

CIWF is calling for pressure to be exerted on the Commission to ensure that the labelling legislation is not scrapped. The next stage in any process will come on May 27 when the Green Paper on agricultural product quality policy will become a White Paper, which will include conclusions drawn from the consultation exercise. The White Paper will then be the subject of debate. Any legislation would be unlikely before 2010.