EC proposes improved rules on agricultural quality products

The European Commission is set on improving rules on agricultural quality products. It is an initiative aimed at encouraging farmers to upgrade their products in order to ensure a better quality for the consumer and in the process get a higher return for their toil.

Currently, the Commission is considering proposals that are intended to clarify and streamline rules for protected geographical indications, protected designations of origin and guaranteed traditional specialities.

These proposals for European systems to develop and protect foodstuffs will encourage diverse agricultural production, protect product names from misuse and imitation, and help consumers by giving them information concerning the specific character of the products.

Anyone who has travelled throughout Europe must have been impressed by the enormous range of great foods. Every country has its specialities. And in every region within a country one can be sure to find foods of all kinds that are the produce of that particular region, many with age-old recipes and a taste of their own.

However, when a product acquires a reputation extending beyond national borders it can find itself in competition with products which are passed off as the genuine article and are given the same name. This constitutes unfair competition, discourages producers and misleads consumers. Which is why, in 1992, the European Union created systems known as Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) meant to promote and protect quality food products.

A PDO describes foodstuffs which are produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area using recognised know-how.

In the case of the PGI the geographical link must occur in at least one of the stages of production, processing or preparation. The product can also benefit from a good reputation.

The designation of a product as being TSG does not refer to its origin but highlights its traditional character, either in its composition or in the means of production.

The list of products registered under these quality schemes contains more than 700 names and is continually growing. It includes such varied items as cheeses, meat-based products, fresh meat, offal, fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans, oils and fats, olive oils, table olives, fruit, vegetables and cereals, bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker's wares, and beers. The current list of pending applications totals over 200.

Producers and processors have to follow a set procedure when applying for registration of a product name. Heading the requirements is a definition of the product according to precise specifications. The application must be sent to the relevant national authority where it will be studied and processed before being transmitted to the Commission.

If the requirements are met the application is listed for registration of Protected Designations of Origin and Protected Geographical Indications under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, for which no First Publication has been made. A first publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities will inform those in the Union who are interested. Finally, if there are no objections, the European Commission publishes the protected product name in the Journal.

The quality policy has been playing an increasingly prominent role at a time when the European Commission is engaged in streamlining the Union's Common Agricultural Policy, a process that has been given priority by Mariann Fischer Boel, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development.

This classification system, says Fischer Boel, "is a cornerstone of the EU's quality policy and our drive to improve the protection of geographical indications internationally. I look forward to working with Council and Parliament in order to meet the WTO deadline of April 2006". She also stated that, "The Commission intends to implement a more efficient and fully WTO-compatible registration procedure for special products of this type."

Geographical Indications (GI) have been a bone of contention between the EU and the World Trade Organisation, and mainly the United States and Australia, since 1999 when the US and Australia filed independent complaints against the EU with the WTO, saying that the EU's GI rules discriminated against non-EU producers and therefore contravened Article 3.1 of the TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) Agreement, which provides for equal treatment.

The EU has accepted to delete the requirement for reciprocity and equivalence from its regulations and to allow trade mark owners to apply for and object to GI registrations directly instead of going through their governments. The WTO "upheld the integrity of the EU's geographical indications systems and rejected the majority of the claims made by the United States and Australia," a Commission statement claimed.

However the WTO panel decision was not clear-cut, and both sides claimed they had been proved right.

The WTO panel had actually agreed with the US and Australia that the EU's GI Regulation was inconsistent with TRIPS in that it restricted previous trade mark owners from attacking registered GIs by allowing only governments to object to registrations and said that reciprocity conditions were not equal.

On the other hand the decision stated that the EU's GI Regulation did not contravene TRIPS with respect to a number of reciprocity conditions applying to objections, inspection structures and labelling requirements, and called on the EU "not to apply to the procedures for registration of GIs located in other WTO members which, it submitted to the panel, is already the case."

In order to ensure full compatibility with the findings of the WTO panel, the EU draft regulations propose to make the registration process more efficient, simplify procedures and clarify the role of member states. The centrepiece of these proposals is the definition of a well-defined "single document" for applications containing all the necessary information for registration, information and inspection purposes and which will be published.

The proposals also seek to boost the image of the labels and the use of the EU logos with a view to increasing consumer recognition. The deadline for implementing the WTO ruling expired last month.

The EU's motivation in ensuring quality standards arises out of the increased consumer awareness of food safety issues and environmental concerns.

A recent Eurobarometer survey of public opinion revealed that a large majority of EU citizens are worried about food quality. 63% of these (Malta 81%) are concerned about pesticides used on fruits and vegetables while 62% (Malta 84%) are apprehensive of the presence of microbes as in the case of the avian flu.

62% of EU citizens are worried about medicinal residues in meat while the same percentage (Malta 81%) are not satisfied with unhygienic meat handling in meat processing units, shops and restaurants. A dubious reaction to genetically modified products is had from 58% of respondents (Malta 52%).

32% of EU citizens trust consumer groups and doctors, with only 6% showing faith in food manufacturers and in farmers; only 3% trust supermarkets and shops.

Such concerns have contributed to the growth in organic farming over the last few years.

Although it only represented around 3% of the total EU utilised agricultural area in 2000, organic farming has developed into one of the most dynamic agricultural sectors in the EU. It grew by about 25% a year between 1993 and 1998 and, since 1998, is estimated to have grown by around 30% a year. In some member states, however, it now seems to have reached its limit.

Organic farming has to be understood as part of a sustainable farming system and a viable alternative to the more traditional approaches to agriculture. Since the EU rules on organic farming came into force in 1992, tens of thousands of farms have been converted to this system, as a result of increased consumer awareness of, and demand for, organically grown products.

The sustainability of both agriculture and the environment is a key policy objective of today's CAP and requires farmers to consider the effect that their activities will have on the future of agriculture and how the systems they employ shape the environment.