Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 27 September 2006 - Strasbourg

16. Production and labelling of organic products (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto in agricultural products and foodstuffs (COM(2005)0671 C6-0033/2006 2005/0279(CNS)) (A6-0253/2006).

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, thank you for the opportunity, even if it is fairly late, to speak about our proposals for new import provisions for organic products. And thank you, Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf, for the valuable report.

With more than 150 000 holdings on 4.4 million hectares, an estimated turnover of almost EUR 11 billion in 2002 and a clear tendency to further growth, this is a very important sector. Considering the very wide range of products on the market and the number of processed products that contain one or more imported ingredients, it is clear that imports are vital for the development of the organic sector within the European Union.

We need to be sure that consumers are confident that the products that they buy as being organic really are so, whether they are imported or produced within the European Union and that there is no unfair competition for European organic producers. At the same time, we need to make firm arrangements for our trading partners so that organic production can continue to increase.

Since 1992, imported products have been able to enter the European Union either from third countries that are recognised by the Community as providing equivalent official guarantees – there are now seven countries on that list and about the same number of applicant countries – or through Member State authorisations for the entry of specific consignments. The latter system derogates from the common rules, which expire at the end of 2006. With this proposal, we want to fill the gap between that date and 1 January 2009, the date of entry into force of the overall proposal we have submitted, which contains exactly the same provisions on imports as we have on the table tonight. There is no difference between what we are proposing now and what will be included in the main proposal entering into force on 1 January 2009. We propose to keep the third country list as it is, but to replace Member State authorisations with a permanent Community system. Finally, our proposal provides for direct access for fully compliant products in order to respect our international trade obligations.

I have noted that the report calls for extra guarantees on this last possibility of direct access. I do not think that our positions on this issue are very far apart. We want to go as far as we can in requesting guarantees from third country operators that are willing to take that route, but without putting ourselves in a position where we could be challenged by the WTO system.

Therefore, I can partially accept Amendments 1 and 2. To a great extent, I can agree in principle to your other amendments, but I would prefer to keep this proposal as concise and simple as possible, setting out all the main rules needed, but not more than that. Further details should, in my view, go into the future implementing rules.

I have also noted with pleasure the great willingness to support the development of the local control bodies in third countries. This is a policy element that I support, but it does not belong in this regulation.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. Commissioner, I would ask for your understanding. I am very sorry, but we must work within time limits that are already entirely stretched.

The rapporteur has five minutes. I am going to ask him just to use four.

   Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (Verts/ALE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, since we are still here at this hour – you have to be, we have to be, and the Commission is here too – we should not spend a quarter of an hour arguing. It really does not matter whether the clock is striking midnight or quarter past; I intend to make full use of my five minutes.

We, Commissioner, are pretty much in agreement where our assessment of the situation is concerned; the organic market is going through a boom, with a shift from the producers who formerly marketed their products directly, from shops specialising in them and in health foods to chain stores who now want to cash in and exploit the boom in the organic market. If they get into the business, they will demand a cut of 10% or 20%, a quite considerable sum that the European producers cannot afford.

Your attitude to the existing regulation is inconsistent. At one point, you say that you want to change what it says about transactions with third countries, which amounts to a revision of it. You want a whole new regulation to deal with what is at the heart of this one, and that is what we have found questionable, since your way of dealing with most – almost every third article – of the draft regulation involves you saying that the details will be sorted out through the comitology procedure, that is to say, in the implementing provisions. We find that too imprecise. What we, in this House, asked you to do was to make improvements; that is why we have put forward only a working paper rather than a report.

As far as imports are concerned – that is to say, the relationship with the third countries – we see it as necessary that the products be obtained in the quantities that the chains need; the problem is that their production in those countries is not in line with EU standards, and so the rules applicable to this urgently need to be tightened up. We support that, even though, where the core regulation is concerned, we have misgivings as to whether you are perhaps not being too accommodating to the demands made by the chains, who are no longer interested in the names of the producers or the names of traditional organic farming associations, but want to get people buying anonymous food so that they can market it under their names. Here, then, there are divergent tendencies; we may well have our misgivings in one case, but in this one we are on your side in that we would like to see the EU’s standards maintained in third countries.

Although reference has been made to the notified third countries, it is still the case that 70% of imports reach us by way of what are termed import permits, which involves scrutiny, not of the production process, but, basically only of the accompanying documents that certify that something is ‘organic’. We all know that paper is patient; so we also need to see to it that the European Union’s standards apply in these countries.

According to you, we have gone rather further in our amendments, but that is not so, Commissioner; the fact is that we are in agreement with you. We are seeking greater precision in certain areas, and would like the European Parliament to have a hand in this notification process in the same way as the individual countries are to be involved in it; we would like to see this documented in a report from the Commission detailing how far you have got with the compilation of the data and how far the notification has progressed. We would also like to see a database set up to contain the data thus collected on the third countries, so that the risks can be monitored by means of checks – which, since we know the sort of people we are dealing with here, will have to be targeted – the object being to ensure that no cheating is going on.

We would like this report to take into account the criticisms we have made, and hope that you will not hold back from this House any of the data you have compiled. We would not want to see a repeat of what happened with the study on qualified market access, where all that was left at the end was market access full stop and qualification got lost somewhere along the road.

All that we are looking for now – since you have mentioned the WTO – is an example of something that will take us towards trade, too, being ‘qualified’.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Albert Jan Maat, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (NL) Madam President, I should like to join in the rapporteur’s protest. A Commissioner who is always present and regularly attends the committee meetings is being silenced this evening after five minutes! We had to wait for her fellow-Commissioner, Mr Frattini, for 10 minutes during this afternoon’s vote, and he was given 15 minutes’ speaking time. This Commissioner is always present, whatever time slot she is given. The fact that we hold debates on agricultural policy at 11.30 at night is nothing to do with her, but with your agenda.

(The President cut the speaker off)

I join in that protest and I will also report this to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development tomorrow.

I will presently turn to the subject in hand, but I would first like to repeat my strong condemnation of the silencing of a Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development who did not ask for this time slot, but who is nevertheless here and seriously engaging with us in debate. The time at which she is here is not of her choosing but is the choice of your Bureau.

The Commissioner said that she understands Parliament’s wishes. The essence of the subject we are discussing today is that import products must meet the requirements of production in the European Union. That is essential and that has been clearly stated in the report. My group, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, is pleased with the outcome in the Agricultural Committee and what has been discussed there is reflected in amendments.

I should like to add a remark of a political nature. In the forthcoming world trade agreements, it is essential that import products meet the same requirements as European products. That applies not only to organic agriculture but also to agriculture as a whole. I hope that we in this House will give sufficient backing to the Agriculture Commissioner on that point, also giving our support in the discussion at Commission level involving her fellow-Commissioner Mr Mandelson. I should like to thank the rapporteur for his report, and I shall advise my group to vote in favour of the report as amended in the Agricultural Committee.

  President. Thank you very much. I would ask all of the Members to appreciate that the interpreters are due to finish work at twelve. We can hold on a few minutes longer, but not much more. I do not want to run the risk of our not having interpreting tomorrow and you should not run that risk either, and I would therefore ask you simply to remain within the time allotted to you.

Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf said that he was going to speak for the five minutes allotted to him and that is what he has done. He has spoken for precisely the five minutes allotted to him. You therefore have no reason to protest.

  María Isabel Salinas García, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I shall restrict myself to the allotted time.

At the end of 2005, the Commission presented two legislative proposals: a proposal for a Regulation on organic production, which will replace the current one from 2009, and the proposal that we are debating now on the import scheme.

With regard to imports, improving the Community system was desirable and urgent, particularly in order to simplify definitively the system of authorisation of imports from third countries in which there is no or was no general equivalence in terms of organic production and in order to facilitate access to the market for organic products, which currently have a weak administrative structure.

My group believes that the modification proposed has those laudable objectives. Nevertheless, I would like to draw attention to the fact that we cannot and must not allow it to reduce the guarantees to the consumer of the imported organic product – as the Commissioner herself has said quite rightly – or to create unfair competition for European operators. I believe that those are the risks that we may run.

Inspection procedures that take account of these risks and that are based on clear rules have become crucial, and it is therefore essential to regulate the recognition and accreditation of certifying bodies at European level. In this regard, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the work that has been done within the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

Having said that, however, I would like to say briefly that we are only talking about one part of the legislation on organic products. The report on the regulation is in deadlock because, amongst other things, the rapporteur alleges that she has not received all of the documentation from the European Commission.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Commission to do everything it can to put an end to this situation and to allow the work on the report to continue and to complete the parliamentary procedure so that we can establish clear, simple and effective rules for this market and clear up the uncertainty currently faced by organic producers.

  Marios Matsakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the rapporteur for his excellent report on the Commission’s proposal to amend the current regulation relating to third-country farming and importation into the EU of organic products.

It is clear for everyone to see that there is a worldwide growing demand for organic produce, and the EU Member States are no exception. The importation of organic products from third countries can thus be a very lucrative enterprise, but the current practices involving such importation are, sadly, not sufficient to necessarily guarantee the quality of a product. We therefore very much welcome this much-awaited Commission proposal. At the same time, we recognise that the proposal has a number of weak points and gaps, which the rapporteur has detected and seeks to correct through a number of amendments, all of which we find both rational and fair. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has complemented his effort by also putting forward a series of valuable amendments.

We have no strong objections to any of the amendments, but we wish to draw attention to the fact that the main problem relating to safeguarding the strict adherence to the regulations shortly to be made into EU legislation is that of implementation. This in fact is the weak link in bringing together many EU legislatures with application effectiveness. And we fear that, despite the undoubted improvements to be effected by the numerous amendments, this legislation will still be crippled by inefficiencies in actually and properly implementing it.

Hoping that time proves me wrong, I once again congratulate the rapporteur on a job well done.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, today’s debate on the draft concerning the labelling of organic agricultural products is in line with the general global trend of an increased demand for healthy food. We are currently having to deal with surplus food production in the countries of the European Union. We are also witnessing a noticeable growth in the number of cases of illnesses caused by the consumption of food saturated with chemicals. Consumers are therefore choosing to buy food that is more expensive but safer. It is not possible to produce such food in many countries because of the poor condition of significant areas of land. Neither is it possible to produce such food on large farms. This situation represents an opportunity for countries where the soil is relatively undamaged and which have small or medium-sized farms. It also represents an opportunity to at least partly resolve the problem of unemployment in rural areas.

Of course, we also have concerns regarding the introduction of unhealthy food into the European Union. Deception is very common in international trade. We may shortly be overwhelmed by so-called healthy food, originating from China for example. The appearance on the European market of theoretically healthy food produced from genetically modifed plants poses an additional risk. In order to deal with both cases, we should introduce provisions placing an outright ban on the importing of organic produce from outside the Union unless there is complete certainty about the quality standards under which it was produced.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, even in his absence, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report, which really is a very good one.

For many farmers, organic farming represents an alternative mode of production. The advent of genetic engineering is prompting a constant increase in demand for organic products from monitored and certified farms. Organic foods account for some 5% in terms of quantity of the turnover of the retail trade in food, with consumers opting for organic products not only because of their richer flavour, but also out of a sense of responsibility for the environment and for animals and in order to make a real contribution towards keeping the countryside intact and diverse.

If strategy is to be based on quantity, then countries like Austria – from which I come – can never succeed in tough competition with the big agricultural countries; we must instead go all out for quality – the highest possible quality – products from a high-quality environment.

A high proportion of Austrian agriculture is organic – organic farms accounting for 11.2% of the total – and we are very pleased about that. The total organic food turnover in Austria amounts to some EUR 450 million per annum. Confidence in organic products can be maintained only if stringent checks are carried out in all areas, in other words on all products, whether originating from the EU or from third countries. Only then is there any guarantee that consumers will be willing to pay the higher prices demanded for these products.

  Kathy Sinnott (IND/DEM). – Mr President, organic food production is becoming increasingly important in my constituency in Ireland. Over the years, Irish farmers have taken great pride in high quality food produced naturally. Going organic has been a logical development for many of them.

I am involved in several amendments. One seeks to limit organic seeds to less than 0.1% GMO contamination, adding another safeguard to the original regulation which only specifies that the parent plant, not the seed, should have been produced organically.

The amendment to Article 16 reinforces the definition of organic agricultural products. The Commission’s proposal allows for a series of exceptions from organic production rules, such as the case of setting up organic farms or solving livestock management problems. This would lead to products that are not organic and not GM-free being on the market labelled as organic. Instead we need to amend this article to control abuses, only allowing for exceptions in specifically stated and unusual conditions, such as an outbreak of avian flu.

If we are going to ask consumers to choose organic, we are going to have to ensure that what they buy is actually organic.

  Ioannis Gklavakis (PPE-DE). – (EL) Mr President, my congratulations to the rapporteur. We pay a high price nowadays, because much of our diet consists of unhealthy products, many of which are contaminated with various agrochemicals. We need to adopt a Mediterranean diet, using products without a lot of fats and pesticides. Organic products are starting to guarantee a better diet, which is why they have been growing over recent years and quite right too.

The European Union, in a bid to protect consumers, has laid down proper production rules and strict controls and, in my opinion, quite rightly so. However, I still have doubts about organic products imported from third countries, as to whether they are produced to the standards which apply in the European Union. The certificates which accompany organic products from third countries must refer each time to the specific consignment. Undertakings in third countries producing organic products for export to the European Union should be inspected once a year. The European Union wants organic products, but for reasons of consumer protection and equal competition with our farmers, all these controls are needed, because otherwise we shall not have results. We shall simply help the supermarket chains to get richer at the expense of consumer health and at the expense of European farmers.

  Neil Parish (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf for a very good report and the Commissioner for being here at such a late hour. I should like to ask you, Mr President, to give the Commissioner enough time to sum up properly at the end of the debate. As she is good enough to come here at this time, we should finish our debate properly.

Concerning organic farming and organic products, I want to stress that people are increasingly buying organic produce, which is to be welcomed. However, they naturally expect those products to be organic, not to be produced with chemicals or chemical fertilisers. One of the problems with organic food is the difficulty of testing it to see how it has been produced. It is very important, therefore, to monitor production in the countries from which we import organic produce. One problem I foresee with organic production generally, not only in Europe but also outside, is that one of these days a TV documentary will be shown following this food production process from beginning to end that finds that the food is perhaps not as organic as it is believed to be. That will turn people off the whole process. It is important, therefore, that people are absolutely certain when they buy a product imported from outside the European Union that those high standards of organic production have been met.

This report and the Commission’s work are therefore very important, not only for imported organic food but also with regard to ensuring a completely level playing field across Europe in terms of the definition of organic products. That way, consumers can buy them with great confidence and we in the farming community can produce them with great confidence.

I should like to thank the Commissioner again and shall leave her a few seconds to sum up.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) I should like to raise five issues relating to organic farming. The first issue is the labelling of organic products, which means the use of a Community logo for organic products or a national or regional logo, together with information on the place of origin and similar data.

The second matter relates to the conditions in which the organic product is produced, the standards applied and the monitoring carried out. It is essential to have a list of substances whose use is permitted in organic agriculture, such as plant protection substances, fertilisers, substances used to improve soil quality, enhancers and substances used in processing. Organic food production takes place in a safe and clean environment that is free from antibiotics, growth hormones and genetically modified organisms. The certification control system should be subject to compulsory accreditation and continuous monitoring.

Thirdly, there is the issue of the value of organic food and its promotion. Consumers need to be made aware of the advantages of organic products in order to increase demand. Better marketing and awareness-raising measures are required to increase the consumption of organic products.

Fourthly, organic farming meets consumers’ needs and expectations regarding food quality. Organic farming provides an opportunity for farmers to increase their income. It is also an opportunity to strengthen regional and local development, notably in less developed areas.

Finally, support for organic farming by means of subsidies for organic farming and support for the creation of a system of appropriate distribution and promotion. This is the weakest link in the relationship between producers and consumers.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, and the rapporteur for his report. Mr Parish has made the point that consumers place great faith in the word ‘organic’ and in organic produce, and we need to ensure that those who want to buy organic are actually getting what they believe is a very pure product. But the truth is – and I am indebted to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland for this gem of information, which I think we in this Chamber probably all know about – there is no recognised scientific test to differentiate organic and conventional produce. It means that we need to make sure that from the seed onwards there are checks and balances in the system. We probably have it right on paper, but it is in terms of implementation where this may fall down.

People are paying higher prices for organic produce. On the Irish market less than 1% of food is organic. We import 70% of our organic needs and again I have to refer to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, because there are over 70 countries listed. Some of them I would not have thought would be in the organic league I have to say, but they are on the list and I think that because they are on the list we need to reassure consumers, certainly in Ireland and across the EU, that if they buy organic produce from those countries, they meet the same standards of organic produce from within the European Union.

I think a paper trail is great and the EU is very good on that. My biggest concern relates to who is monitoring the control bodies and who is checking the auditors. This is a concern I have across all of our legislation and it is perhaps something that the Commissioner might address in the short time she has available to her. But yes, the organic sector is growing. It is a small sector, but I share Mr Parish’s concern that any crack in confidence will destroy it. It will destroy the market for producers, it will ruin consumer confidence and it is something we should seek to avoid. My fear is that some organic produce being imported into the EU is anything but organic.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to thank Members for all their comments, although some of them seem to be related more to the general regulation on organic products. I hope that next time we have a discussion on this issue we will have a bit more time so that I can go into more detail.

Regarding Amendment 13, a meaningful report cannot be drawn up before the first list of control bodies has been functioning for longer; in any case, not before the date of entry into application of the full regulation on 1 January 2009.

The idea of training of local certifiers is a good one, and we will have to find ways of planning this training. Training support and technical assistance is also foreseen in the official food and feed control regulation.

The idea raised by the rapporteur of a databank seems to be difficult to implement, but I would be willing to look further into it.

The requirement for the control bodies to be accredited in the context of the list of third countries in paragraph 4 is not applicable, as there is governmental supervision in these cases. For the control bodies that are listed in paragraph 5, I agree in principle to the request for formal accreditation, but adequate governmental supervision should also be acceptable as an alternative in that situation. We should also be able to show some flexibility to local bodies in developing countries and in countries at an early stage of development, from whom it is not always feasible to have international accreditation.

I agree with the idea of the supervision of control bodies – I think that it is crucial and essential. But we would prefer a more general wording on supervision. More detailed rules can be set out in the implementing rules; but, as mentioned in my introduction, I would prefer to have a very simple and concise proposal.

To conclude, Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are partially acceptable or acceptable in principle. The other amendments cannot be accepted.

Thank you for the debate. I think – maybe not in the letter, but at least in spirit – we are heading in the same direction.

  President. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Please forgive me. Please appreciate our time limitations. Despite everybody’s efforts, we have finished almost a quarter of an hour later than planned. I would like to thank the interpreters for their understanding, allowing us to finish the debate with all of the limitations that I regret having had to impose on them.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 noon.