Instruction for use
This is a draft report and should not be quoted before it is completed.
Partners of the Cert Cost project can edit the page and write commments under each section.
Document numbers in the text refer the list of reviews (see menu on the left) in this section.
The following headings have been revised slightly in light of the material that has been found and evluated. Further changes are still possible.
1. Introduction
This section will set out the general context of the report and out line what it covers and will be written once the rest has been done.
1.1 Short background
1.2 Aims of the report
The aim is to provide an overview of present problems, future challenges and ideas to improve organic standards setting and certification as a guide for further research in the project, and to help clarify what criteria can used to identify a good organic certification system.
1.3 Summary of content
All partners can add specific items to the section, reponsible partner UWA will be overall responsible and finally edit this section
2. What is food quality and organic certifcation?
The aim of this chapter is to provide a basic introduction to food quality assurance standards and certification in Europe, based on a range of documents in the academic literature and published by the European Union. The chapter distinguishes between three different dimensions, the standards or rules that set out the requirements, the bodies that control adherence to a certain standards and the way this adherence may be communicated to the consumer. The concluding discussion touches on issues of trust of food quality certification and includes a summary of the future policy intention of European Commission.
Food quality is an important element of common agricultural policy with organic farming representing one of a number of schemes in the European Union setting out specific quality requirements.
Producing food of high quality is an important part of the Common Agricultural Policy. The EU Commission refers to a broad food quality definition:
“Agricultural product ‘qualities’ includes both ‘product characteristics’ (physical, chemical, microbiological and organoleptic features – size, appearance, taste, look, ingredients, etc.) and ‘farming attributes’ (production method, type of animal husbandry, use of processing techniques, place of farming and of production, etc.)” (COM, 2009).
This is in line with similar ‘holistic’ definitions referred to the in the literature distinguishing between a range of product related qualities (such as harmful residues, problem ingredients or nutritional content but also technological qualities) and process qualities. Food quality labels range from those awarded by manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, retailers, government bodies and independent associations (e.g. consumer associations) to those that fulfil policy functions, such as nutritional labelling. Criteria for been awarded a certain label/logo can range from very strict to almost non existent (Grunert, 2005).
Quality requirements can refer to different aspect of the product quality and safety (e.g. hygiene, pesticide residues, salt content, nutritional content) that can be measure and to the production process and supply chain, such as the organization of production processes (e.g. pesticide use, housing systems), the management of processes (e.g. traceability requirements); product characteristics regarding), authenticity (e.g. geographical origin) and infrastructure (Krieger et al., 2007; Eden et al., 2008a).
Overall a large number of mandatory and voluntary quality system assurance systems exist in agriculture and in the food industry throughout Europe. Most authors agree that Third Party Certification has become an important factor in the agri-food sector (Henson and Reardon, 2005), some even refer to it as the “gold standard”(Hatanaka et al., 2005; Jahn et al., 2005; Schulze et al., 2006b). Giovanucci (2008) summarises three main driving factors for the growing importance of certification type systems as follows:
1. More health conscious and ethically aware consumers
2. Growing concentration in agri-food sector and international trade
3. Difficulties of governments to maintain food safety guarantees against growing global trade
The considerable number of schemes is confusing and potentially time consuming and expensive for producers and processors (Rother, 2005).
Are there other important references that should be included here
Based on this three different dimensions of food assurance schemes can be distinguished which will be explored further in the following sections: the criteria or standard that a product has to fulfil, the way adherence to the quality standard is assessed and finally how adherence is communicated in the market place.
2.1 Food quality criteria and standards
According to the EU Commission food quality acts at two levels:
• A basic level set by regulation that all farmers in the EU have to respect, and
• A voluntary level to differentiate certain product attributes desired by some consumers. [based on COM 234/2009].
The basic level covers certain farming requirements such as in relation to food safety and hygiene (a ‘non-negotiable must’), the use of pesticides and veterinary products, product identity (e.g marketing standards defining certain products), environmental protection and animal welfare. Not all statutory requirements are fully harmonised across the EU, difference for example still exist in relation to animal welfare legislation. Statutory requirements and controls are largely but not fully harmonised at European level, but they are not internationally harmonised, i.e. adherence to the same statutory requirements cannot be assumed in international trade.
Beyond these ‘baseline’ statutory requirements, farmers and food producers can use their expertise and imagination to give their products other attributes valued by consumers. This can include both product but in particular process characteristics (such as farming methods, place of farming). Such additional attributes are mostly defined by the private sector, either companies or NGOs. These are presented in manuals that include requirements and interpretations and checklists for self-control and audit (Krieger et al., 2007).
In the area of geographical indication and organic farming the EU has introduced regulations to define the minimum EU wide standard [based on COM 234/2009]. The requirements laid down in the organic regulations are above statutory requirements in most areas (above good agricultural practise), but within organic now also additional claims becoming more important (such as organic and fair trade, and local, and welfare friendly etc)(see Padel and Gössinger, 2008).
In some standards the requirements are structured hierarchically, distinguishing between classifications as ‘high and low priority’ (e.g. IKM), ‘critical, not critical and recommendations’ (Eurep GAP?), ‘basic and high level’ (IFS), or as ‘1, 2, and 3’ (Safe Quality Food (SQF) 1000 and SQF 2000) which can result in different certification levels (Krieger et al., 2007). This allows producers that follow a certain standard also to set themselves higher targets for the future.
Figure1: Different types of food quality assurance systems will be included here
2.2 Verification and control of adherence to certain food quality requirements+’
Verification of the adherence to different types of food quality requirements can be monitored either by statutory control bodies (e.g. food/feed controls in line with Regulation (EC) 882/2004), by independent third party certification or through various models of collaboration between the pubic and the private sector.
Statutory rights of public bodies to carry out inspections are focussing mainly on cases of suspected contravention (e.g., threats to food safety, environmental harm) (Jahn et al 2005), but cross compliance as part of the statutory controls for recipients of Single Farm Payment has broadened this to include compliance with various codes of agricultural practise.
Include some more about statutory controls (e.g. 882/2004) or cross reference to other chapter; cross compliance for SAP)
Certification provides quality assurance for food quality products, along side statutory controls. Certification bodies monitor adherence to specific quality requirements through regular control and – where necessary – additional sampling in the production process or entire supply chain. Companies are awarded a specific certificate, and than are entitled to make use of the quality label for marketing purpose (Jahn et al., 2005).
Certification provides credibility to claims that producers make about product attributes. The credibility of the certifier itself is backed up by accreditation, EU legislation,Member State listing and official inspections (EC-AGRI, 2009). Accreditation is either provided by the private or by the public sector often by or which consent of the public authorities (van der Meulen and van der Velde, 2008). Requirements for accreditation are laid down in ISO 65 which is endorsed by the European Union as EN 45011 (see chapter XX).
Certification type schemes cover a wide range of issues, such as certifying adherence to legal requirements (e.g. food safety). Certification is also commonly used for voluntary schemes either regulated by government or the EU (e.g. existing EU Regulations on PDO/PGI/TSG, organic farming). Certification to private sector standards covers both verification of compliance with compulsory production standards as well as additional requirements relating to environmental protection, animal welfare, organoleptic qualities, worker welfare, fair trade, climate change concerns, ethical, religious or cultural considerations, farming methods, and origin.
Some authors provide a basic economic definition of certification (e.g. Jahn et al., 2005)(Schulze et al., 2006b). The traditional economic model assumes that supply and demand meet in the market place with the aim of exchanging homogeneous products, and both suppliers and buyers have full information about all commodities concerned. In reality, neither the assumption of all traded goods being homogeneous nor that of all participants being equally well informed are met. The information asymmetry increases for certain product attributes that are hidden to the outside observer. Certification aims to address this information asymmetry by establishing through regular inspections that the production process follows a certain specified standard.
Eden et al. (2008b) differentiate between first, second and third party certification, whereby first party refers to self certification, second to certification by a party closely related to the supply chain and third party to an independent body. Eden et al. (2008a) describe Third Party Certification as the ‘knowledge-fix’ that tries to rectify with the problem of distrust and disconnection between producers and consumers of food in develop economies, in contrast to the ‘spatial-fix’ that aims to achieve greater connection through more local food production and distribution. They
In terms of all actors involved in food quality assurance Schulze et al (2006) distinguish between suppliers (producers), customers (buyers), standard owners, control and certification bodies, accreditation bodies and as different actors in the certification systems.
2.3 Communication of and trust in food quality assurance
The third dimension important in food quality assurance is the communication with the user of the quality attributes that are assured. Here the European Commission distinguishes between labelling and certification type schemes in the following way:
• Labelling schemes are best suited for relatively straightforward claims that are normally self-declared by producers and subject to official controls.
• Certification-type schemes are best suited to complex undertakings, which are usually laid down in a detailed specification and checked periodically (e.g. annually), for example by a certifying body (COM/234/2009).
Marketing literature adds branding as a communication strategy of food attributes and this can either be through specific food brands or increasingly also through retailer branding (e.g. Grunert 2005).
There are also certification type schemes which do not necessarily aim to communicate to the end customer. For example BRC and Global GAP? that have evolved both in response to both to weaknesses and international variation in public food safety/quality control systems and aim to provide an assurance of quality to the buyer rather then the final costumer. The global concentration in food retailing has been a dominant driver in developing private systems, as illustrated by the BRC (Henson and Reardon, 2005).
However, there may be a difference between the intention to communicate certain product attribute to the consumers in a certain way and how the consumer perceives such attributes. A widespread view is that a lack of consideration of quality assurance schemes and their logos/labels by consumers can be explained with a lack of information and promotion of certain schemes. This leads to the conclusion and that more knowledge based schemes would increase the consumer willingness to pay for certain attributes (see for example (Botonaki et al., 2006).
However, several authors also raise some concerns about how successful third party certification can be communicated to consumers and that in debate about the about the effectiveness of the certification tool is in achieving its aims has been neglected.. Schulze et al. (2006) argue that certification can only fulfil its basic aim of reduction of information asymmetry within the market, if the institutions in charge succeed in establishing a quality reputation, and thus the corresponding labels are accepted as a quality cues. Organisations involved need to demonstrate a credible commitment towards the principles and specific regulations of the certification system in question. With the growing importance, certification itself has become competitive market which may lead to compromises. In some sectors, the trust has been eroded and certification has gained the reputation of paper based exercise, where GMP no longer stands as an acronym for “Good Manufacturing Practice” but for “Give Me Papers“. Problems can also arise because suppliers view certifications as externally imposed obligations rather than as intrinsically motivated quality management systems. Grunert (2005) also raises some questions about the effectiveness of many food quality labels to act as quality cues to consumers.
Eden et al (2008a, b) observed that research so far has considered certification predominantly from the standpoint of the farming and food producers and has paid less attention to the consumer. In their qualitative research in England they explore how consumers understand and evaluate a range of certification schemes. Participants expressed confusion and scepticism and found it difficult to work out what standards certification involved and what kinds of organisations were providing assurance. The authors concluded that there is a need to better understand how consumers make sense of assurance information in different contexts and argue for critical reflection on whether Third Party Certification (‘knowledge-fix’) really can be seen as the “gold” standard in food assurance.
2.4 Future intentions of EU with respect to food quality policies
As a result of the various consultations the Commission indentified three areas that future development of food quality policy need to consider:
• Information: to improve communication between farmers, buyers and consumers about agricultural product qualities;
• Coherence: to increase the coherence of EU agricultural product quality policy instruments;
• Complexity: to make it easier for farmers, producers and consumers to use and understand the various schemes and labelling terms.
Apart from further developing the baseline legal requirements for the food and farming industry, the EU Commission proposes to act in the two different tracks of labelling and public certification type schemes.
In relation to labelling schemes and marketing standards the commission intends to address the following for four areas:
• RESERVED TERMS (‘such as free range’ eggs; ‘barn’ eggs, ‘first cold pressed’ extra virgin and virgin olive oil, ‘traditional method’ sparkling wine);
• PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION (such as for fruit : extra, class 1, class 2 and for eggs: large, medium, small) ,
• PRODUCT IDENTITY (such as definitions of butter, fruit juice, chocolate, wine, extra virgin olive oil ) and
• ORIGIN or PLACE OF FARMING LABELLING (such as the place of harvest for fruit and vegetables and the place of pressing for olive oil).
The mentioning of origin (i.e. place of farming) has clear relevance to organic certification where labelling the place of origin will become compulsory in 2009 (see amendment of Regulation (EC) 834/2007) see chapter XX). The response from stakeholders in the above mentioned consultations revealed a tension between the interests of farmers and consumers who urge for greater use of the labelling of place and the interests of food processors and retailers who are aware how difficult it can be to track the farming origins of ingredients in processed foodstuffs.
In relation to the public certification-types schemes the Commission will prepare the ground for a possible recast of the legislation on geographical indications legislation with the aim to simplify, clarify intellectual property rights and generic terms as well as considering the international developments in this area.
In relation to organic farming the document refers to the already completed total revision of the organic farming regulation in 2007/08, the new obligatory EU organic logo to be introduced in 2010 that is currently under development, a report on the application of the new regulation to Council and Parliament in 2011 as well as seeking mutual recognition of organic standards with non-EU countries and will contribute to the development of the Codex Alimentarius organic guideline in order to foster trade.
The Commission is also considering labelling in relation to animal welfare, extending the Ecolabel to cover food and feed (subject to a feasibility study) and has been asked by the Council to look at labelling options in the complex area of carbon footprints. Stakeholders have proposed that the EU should further schemes particularly in the environmental sphere, such as product of high-nature value farming.
possible include figure 2 from COM/2009/234)
2.5 Discussion
Which sector exercises more control, the public or the private sector varies between different sectors. (Codron et al., 2005) compared the Minimal Quality Standards requirements for the beef and fresh produce sector and concluded that government alone defines and monitors requirements in the beef sector, whereas in the produce sector both government and the private sector are involved.
Benefits and costs of certification
A more specific definition of benefits and costs of organic certification is provided by Zorn et al (2009) in the report Economic Concepts of organic certification (D5). This section only provides a short summary of relevant types of costs and benefits.
Third party certification can theoretically benefit all actors in involved. Producers may better access to markets and potentially also to premiums if special qualities can be recognised in the market place. In the case of minimal certification standards producers may also benefit from a level playing field. Consumers benefit because they are provided with greater information about certain hidden product attributes and certification may ensure a level of enforcement of statutory and legally defined requirements.
Different economic models to account for the cost of certification exist, such as information economics (main emphasis on costs incurred when gathering information about credence attributes), various categories of transaction costs (occurring because of a combination of bounded rationality and opportunistic behaviour) and supervision and enforcement costs (see Zorn et al D5 for further details).
Who pays for the costs of certification is a question of debate. Hatanaka (2005) argue that TPC systems in particular benefit food retailers, because the adherence to their own production standards is monitored throughout the supply chain, but the direct responsibility for the monitoring process, and thus liability is reduced. Retailers can reduce their transaction costs since they have the power to shift the burden of the system’s costs to other stakeholders, in particular producers. Benefits to producers arise in terms of the opportunity to participate stay in the market place, but the research literature places less emphasis on the benefits of TPC to consumers (Hatanaka et al., 2005).
Do we have other important references about this?
2.6 Common points/conclusions
Growing importance of certification based systems.
Food retailers are one important driving force in a shift towards a more “privatised” food systems governance.
Certification systems mainly apply to process type product attributes as well as certification that certain legal food safety standards have been met.
Certification can have benefits to producers in terms of competitive advantage. However, the existing of many different mandatory and voluntary quality standard and assurance systems in agriculture and in the food industry throughout Europe is confusing for both producers and consumers (Rother/
Certification per se does not lead to increased consumer trust in the certified claim (see Schulze for GMP = Give me paper rather than good manufacturing practise). One factor (but not only one probably) that contributes to trust in the claim is how far reaching inspection/certification is, which in turn contributes to cost of certification.
Relevant documents used include the following reviews. Some other material has also been used.
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00001
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00003
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00004
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00008
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00011
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00014 http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00022 http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00024
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00026
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00029
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00030
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00032
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00035
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00036
http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00047
3. Certification impact of EU Regulation 2092/91
The main aim of this section is to briefly summarise the historic development leading to the specification of organic certification requirements in 2092/91 (in so far as this sets the framework for the inspection data from 2007 and 2008 that are to be analysed) and briefly discuss weakness of this systems that were identified.
Relevant documents are uploaded: 06 37, 42, 43, 44, 46.
Some material under 10 (specific studies) is also likely to be relevant.
3.1 Historic development of private standards
3.2 Development of international standards and European Regulation
3.3 Rules for organic certification in 2092/91
3.4 Communication of certification to consumer
Introduction to the issue of (Rev 09,12,15) more coverage will be left to WP3
3.5 Discussion of weaknesses
this will include research literature from Germany and experience from partners in other member states
UWA is overall responsible and is in the process of drafting the basic chapter. Partners can add their experience in the indicated sections
4. Likely impact of the new EU Regulations (EC/834/2007 and EC/889/2008)
The main aim of this section is to introduce changes to the certification requirements in the new EC regulations 834/2007 and 889/2008 and discuss the likely impact on organic certification systems.
As yet not many relevant documents have been uploaded, but relevant material includes the regulations themselves as well as the guide to the new regulation from Mikkelsen and Schlüter (published by the IFOAM EU-Group). There is one report under the German programme on the impact of 882 (OFFC) on the organic control system
4.1 Summary of requirements from 834/2007 and 889/2008
Operator, control body and competent authority
4.2 Discussion of the likely impact
Impact of the cross reference to 882/2004 (OFFC)
Impact of the cross reference to ISO 65/EN 45011
Confidentiality/ data protection versus exchange of information to prevent fraud and integrity along the supply chain
Risk based control inspections
Experience 6 month after introduction in selected member states (from partners)
4.3 Summary and conclusions
‘’UWA has started to draft a summary of the main provisions in the regulation and key points in relevant articles. However, it is likely that are not many actual documents yet. In particular IMO and ICEA and FIBL should write about their experience directly on the wiki. This way we all can see what others have done.
Please suggest sub-headings appropriate to structure your experiences. Alternatively, we can use sub-headings as they arise from the certification requirements review of the task force.’‘
Overall responsiblity with UWA
5. Regulation EEC 882/2004 (food and feed control)
The main aim of this section is to introduce the EU regime for food safety control which is mentioned in 834/2007 and discuss how this impacts on organic certification, and specific issues such as definition of and approach to risk-based controls in that regulation.
Main material to be contributed by ICROFS, but all partners should add their experience. Cert Cost review 34 is the actual text of the regulation itself, several other documents have been uploaded.
According to http://ecowiki.org/CertCost/00059 lawyers consider the more detailed provisions in 834/2007 and 889/ 2008 to take precedence over 882/2004. We may decide to incorporate this material into the chapter on 834 rather then keeping this as a seperate chapter.
Neudorff (in Cert Cost 00059) further makes reference to a German study, but this has not yet been uploaded. Does anybody know abut this?
Main responsibility with ICROFS in collaboration with UWA. Subheadings need to be suggested. Partners should add their relevant experience
6. Accreditation/supervision of organic control bodies according to ISO Guide 65 EN 45011 and other schemes
The main aim of this section should be to identify criteria for a “good/high quality” certification system in Europe that can be used in the further analysis. This could include a table setting out the certification/accreditation requirements for various operators in all relevant guides and regulation.
6.1 Requirements related to the operator
6.2 Requirements related to control bodies
6.3 Requirements related to competent authorities
6.4 ISO guide for inspectors
The chapter has been moved upwards. Issues arising from the task force that relate to accreditation and supervision should be included in this chapter
Relevant documents uploaded:
– 48, 49
The task force (see below) has done much work comparing the requirements of EEC 2092/91 with ISO 65 and with other international standards (including IFOAM Accrediation), but not with EC 834/2007 or with the general food and feed control systems (889) to which the EU regulations also make reference.
Steidle and Alonso 2005 for example [Cert Cost review 59] provide a table comparing ISO 65 requirements with 2092/91. The table can provide the basis for a comparison with 834 and 889 requirements that I have started.
Steidel and Alonso conclude that difference arise because organic is a process type inspection whereas ISO 65 was mainly written for product-type inspections. It would further be interesting to explore whether difference between ISO 65 and organic regulations may occur because one is concerned with the certification according to private codes of conduct, whereas the organic certification now refers to a legally enforceable standard.
A comparison with 882/2004 may help to clarify this.
Of interest is also whether there are national differences in the implementation of the requirement. Germany, for example, introduced much ahead of everybody else a requirement for separation of inspection bodies from farmers’ organisations, but I am not sure what the legal basis for this separation was. Did Germany require ISO 65 accreditation ahead of the EU?
Main responsiblity with FIBL in collaboration with UWA. All partners can add their experience
7. 7 Other internationl initiatives related to the harmonisation and improvement of organic certification
The aim of the chapter is to explore the outcome of internatonal initiatives such as the task force in terms of improvement of organic certification procedures, not content of standards.
7.1 UNCTAD/FAO/IFOAM task force
this shoudl focus on other aspects of the task force then accredition that will be covered above
7.2 Anti fraud imitative
7.3 ISEAL
Relevant documents uploaded:
– 02, 24, 25, 26, 28, 38, 39, 40, 41, 50, 52, 53
It is proposed that IMO should take over responsiblity for this chapter in collaboration with UWA. Other all partners should contribute experience
8. Lessons from EU-food quality labels and other geographical indications
The main aim of this section is to introduce geographical indications, draw lessons for organic certification in terms of certification procedures from those schemes, and explore the potential for combinations with organic certification.
Relevant documents uploaded:
– 7, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 33
Some other material from recent searches has now been uploaded.
Main responsiblity with ICEA. Can you suggest subheadings first and then start drafting the text for the report, then other partners can add their experience.
9. Lessons from other internationl food certification schemes?
The main aim of this section will be top draw lessons from other international food certification schemes, such as Global GAP, fair trade with particular emphasis on the discussion between schemes aimed at the development of operators versus the policing function of the control visit
Relevant documents uploaded: 13, 17, 21, 27, 30, 31, 33, 35, 48, 49, 59, 55
Some more material covering both national and & other certification schemes (e.g. forestry). The development aspect (teacher rather than policemen) was particularly important to the stakeholder meeting.
UWA will be overall responsible. Not much progress has yet been made in developing a structure of subheadings. Any suggestions are welcome. Partners could then add furthr experience
10. Discussion
10.1 Organisation of certification systems
10.2 Role of operator, CB and competent authority
10.3 Competencies
10.4 Frequency of inspection
10.5 Confidentiality versus information exchange
10.6 Policemen or teacher? Developmental potential of organic certification
10.7 Output oriented (public good delivery) certification systems
10.8 Voluntary standards delivering policy goals
‘’The headings are tentative and will change. All partners should note down ideas when drafting other sections. Final responsiblity with UWA.
11. Summary and conclusions/recommendations
