Last month the European Commission published a controversial communication on the future of the EU's food and drink marketing and quality schemes, which is likely to lead to mandatory country of origin labelling (COOL) for products, and to extend the bloc's much-derided geographical indications (GIs) policy.
EU farmers have welcomed the move. However, manufacturers and retailers are concerned about the practical difficulties and additional costs. Foreign suppliers to the EU view this as yet another protectionist move aimed at supporting EU farmers at the expense of efficient producers elsewhere.
The principal concern of non-EU producers is that many of the product names protected, such as Stilton and Parma Ham, have been used throughout the world for centuries and are regarded as generic terms. If the protection of those names is extended, how would non-EU producers market products and how would consumers in those countries know what they were buying?
The communication argues the measures are necessary to help consumers make informed decisions when buying food, and will ensure farmers are compensated for producing high-quality products and meeting stringent standards which sounds laudable. But the fine print states the EU's agrifood sector needs to pursue this approach to "sustain its competitiveness and profitability". The communication also suggests producers of GI products want to restrict their production using quotas, which won't help consumers make informed purchasing decisions, but will drive prices up.
Another issue is that it comes hot on the heels of a raft of proposals, including those on wine labelling and nutrition labelling. Keeping up with all these regulatory developments is costly and is quickly eroding the competitive position of the most important industry we have in Europe. It is time for the European institutions to revisit our food and drink policies. We need to develop a regulatory framework that fosters competitiveness, not one that complicates life and protects us from our own inefficiencies.
Sarah Salmond is a senior consultant in DLA Piper's EU International Trade Practice
EU farmers have welcomed the move. However, manufacturers and retailers are concerned about the practical difficulties and additional costs. Foreign suppliers to the EU view this as yet another protectionist move aimed at supporting EU farmers at the expense of efficient producers elsewhere.
The principal concern of non-EU producers is that many of the product names protected, such as Stilton and Parma Ham, have been used throughout the world for centuries and are regarded as generic terms. If the protection of those names is extended, how would non-EU producers market products and how would consumers in those countries know what they were buying?
The communication argues the measures are necessary to help consumers make informed decisions when buying food, and will ensure farmers are compensated for producing high-quality products and meeting stringent standards which sounds laudable. But the fine print states the EU's agrifood sector needs to pursue this approach to "sustain its competitiveness and profitability". The communication also suggests producers of GI products want to restrict their production using quotas, which won't help consumers make informed purchasing decisions, but will drive prices up.
Another issue is that it comes hot on the heels of a raft of proposals, including those on wine labelling and nutrition labelling. Keeping up with all these regulatory developments is costly and is quickly eroding the competitive position of the most important industry we have in Europe. It is time for the European institutions to revisit our food and drink policies. We need to develop a regulatory framework that fosters competitiveness, not one that complicates life and protects us from our own inefficiencies.
Sarah Salmond is a senior consultant in DLA Piper's EU International Trade Practice
No comments yet