|
|
 |
What the organic movement thinks of the Commission’s proposal of the revision |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IFOAM EU Group was in favour of a thorough revision of the EU Regulation for organic food and farming. However, the group was taken aback by the Commission’s proposal of a total revision of the current regulation, which potentially changes the character of Organic Agriculture altogether.
After consulting with members and analysing the proposal at the beginning of the year, a significant number of problem areas were identified. These were formulated into a paper of ‘grave concerns’. The Group questioned if the Commission proposal set up organic food and farming for the next decade.
Timescale too short
The timeline for deciding on the proposed regulation was extremely tight, and the practical and legal implications of the proposal for the new Regulation largely remain unclear.
“The revision has the potential to be the most significant development for the European organic sector since the regulation came into force in 1991”, said Francis Blake, president of the group in 2005. “We urge that a fast decision-making process must not be at the expense of consultation with the organic movement and other stakeholders.”
Already in July 2005 the Group asked in a letter to Agriculture Commissioner Fischer Boel for a sufficient and realistic timescale. This call was repeated in a letter to the Austrian Presidency in March 2006. The Austrian Presidency responded that, to them, quality had to prevail over speed. In consequence, they allowed the discussion process in the Council to prolong beyond their presidency. This was widely appreciated by the sector.
Concerns and crucial points
The Austrian Presidency and the succeeding Finnish Presidency have drafted a new compromise text on June 28, 2006. In reviewing this, the IFOAM EU Group acknowledged that some points of the organic sector have been taken up. Nevertheless, there are still open questions to be clarified and concerns of the sector still remained.
The IFOAM EU Group considers it as crucial that these points will be recognised in the decision for a new regulation (see overview table for the main points).
|
Major concerns and
crucial points of the organic movement
|
No formal stakeholder involvement
- Procedures for transparent and formalised stakeholder involvement at all levels must be established. Relevant documents should be accessible to the public with sufficient time for proper consultation and response. The authorities should report publicly on these consultations.
Scope too limited
- The scope should extend to cover all products of organic agriculture, including textiles, cosmetics and managed wild animals.
Principles don’t reflect IFOAM’s
- The objectives and principles should be further developed in line with those decided by the organic sector.
Inferring organic not covered
- The same level of protection of the term “organic”, as in the existing regulation, must be kept. Even inferring organic should be covered.
More centralised decision making
- The decision making structure must not transfer power away from member states to the Commission (article 31). The existing regulatory committee should remain.
More centralised certification
- The official food and feed controls (regulation 882/2004) fundamentally changes the framework and scope of the organic inspection system. At the very least, its special requirements must be specifically stated, and must be controlled, within the organic regulation. Also the proposal should use the terminology of Codex, not food control.
Restrictions on advertising claims
- The new restrictions on the labelling and advertising organic products (article 20) must go!
Restrictions on private logos
- There can be no interference with a private body’s right to control the issuing of its own logo (article 24.3).
GMOs must be excluded
- The defacto 0.9% contamination level of organic products (from the GM labelling regulation) is not acceptable.
Flexibility
- The criteria for flexibility should be clear and transparent, and must not distort trade. They should be incorporated in the regulation.
Positive lists- The lists of allowed inputs should be explicitly referenced. Decision criteria should be incorporated in the regulation, based on IFOAM criteria and the results of the EU-funded Organic Inputs Evaluation project.
Imports- Import authorisation should reflect Codex wording, which would allow acceptance on the basis of IFOAM accreditation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
