Michael Fitzmaurice Questions EU Organic Rules and 5% Import Clause
Michael Fitzmaurice questioned EU organic import rules, the ECJ ruling and the so-called 5% allowance that may permit third-country ingredients in products labelled as EU organic. He sought clarification on whether meat could be included under the 5% rule, asked about the list of 11 equivalent countries and pressed for data on physical checks of imports.
Main points raised
Mr Fitzmaurice asked whether the 11% figure cited was a European figure and noted Ireland's figure of 5.5%. He challenged how the ECJ ruling interacts with current proposals and whether a product containing less than 5% from a third country could still carry the EU organic logo.
Equivalency and the 11 countries
He discussed the Commission's list of 11 countries that have been deemed equivalent to EU organic rules and quoted Annex 7 of the Commission proposal. The discussion noted that equivalency means rules are not identical now, but the Commission aims to move partners towards full compliance over time.
Concerns about the 5% rule and meat
Mr Fitzmaurice probed whether the 5% allowance could apply to meat and other agricultural products, and how such ingredients would be treated within an EU-labelled product. He questioned if products with up to 5% from a third country could be incorporated into EU products and still be marketed under the EU organic tag.
Checks and enforcement questions
He pressed for clarity on enforcement, asking specifically what percentage of organic imports from third countries are physically checked by the EU or member states. Officials responded that paperwork checks occur and border control points receive documentation, but Mr Fitzmaurice sought concrete figures for physical inspection rates.
Follow-up and information requested
Mr Fitzmaurice asked for the list of the 11 countries and the products each agreement covers to be forwarded to the committee. He also noted the Commission is proposing higher requirements for equivalency and a time frame the Commission has suggested for full alignment, which remains under discussion.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Well, thanks. I know 11% is the figure you've used there. Is that European figure? Yeah, 11%. Ireland isn't at that. What are we? 5.5%. Right, okay. I'll just clarify that. Second of all, is Brazil on the organic list of countries of the 11? No. I note that you can bring in 5% now under the proposals in a product and put it into an EU product and it's going to still go under the EU tag. Is that right? Going by what I've read here. If it's less than 5%, and that would be things like salt or spices, maybe, for example. Is it meat? No, no, it would be like ginseng or, you know, some kind of flavour. So it's how loud in meat you're saying? What do you mean? Going by what I'm looking at there, a product less than 5% from another country can be put in. Can that product be meat? It could be any agricultural product, yeah, less than 5%. So it can? Yes, it can, yeah. Okay. And so we can bring meat in from a third country under the ECJ ruling, is that it? Meat can come into Europe already. Yeah, I know that. Not before this, yeah. But you can put it into the raw materials of something you're making up. It can be 5% from a third country and it still gets the EU logo on it. If the country is equivalent, yes. Yeah. And in the line of the ECJ ruling, what are the downsides of it? Well, I would say that, look, the ECJ ruling is helpful, really, to help us to help the Commission, I suppose, to refine and simplify the regulations. So I don't see a downside. It's actually just... But I think, reading the ECJ ruling, from what I've read of it, that it's leaving the gate open for more third countries. No, I don't think so. Do you not? No, I don't. Look, the 11 countries are stated in the document. So at the end of the day, I suppose, you know, the proposal from the Commission is to raise the bar in terms of what the requirements are to get equivalency status. And that's what's in Annex 7 of the proposal. What they're proposing now is that in 2036, the 11 countries, instead of the end of 26, is going to be left on this list of... Yeah. Why is that now? Is there not a... And I note that there's a thing about trade deals as well. What's the reason that that's been sort of... We'll carry on with the same story. Well, I suppose just... Like, I suppose the EU... We have our own rules within the EU of organic production. As I said, there's other rules throughout Europe or throughout the world with other countries. The EU has entered agreements with all these countries. And the EU have deemed these... Their production rules as equivalent to the EU rules. As Brian said, they're not the same. But what the EU would like to do is they would like to move towards compliance. That's where they're all the same. But... So just to be clear on one thing, they're not the same at the moment, but they're allowed in. Is that it? They're not 100% the exact same rules. However, they are a set of production rules that... To farm organic, and the EU have discussed with these countries, they've reviewed the ruling, the rules, they've reviewed their certification body, their certification system, and they have deemed them to be equivalent. And what they would like to do is to move to compliance. But that's a slow process. And that's why the EU... So basically what you're saying to me is, to put it simple, they're giving the benefit, or they're trying to get these countries over a period of time to come in in line with the EU rules. But at the moment they're not in line, but they're still going to get organic status in Europe. Is that fair to say? Well, it is actually a two-way street. So there are countries who aren't happy with some of the practices in Europe that would like our standards to be raised in other areas. So it is definitely a two-way street. But let's talk about the street that we're in port. Oh, no, unnoted, yeah. But so basically, yes, to get full agreement across all countries will just take time. The Commission is looking for 10 years. That hasn't been granted yet. Do you have a list of the 11 countries, and do you have a list of their, I presume you do in your department, a list of what their class is organic? Yes, there are agreements laid out from the Commission in terms of what the products can be important. I'm not about the products. If you had that list of the 11 countries and the list of what they claim to be coverable and organic or what they are allowed to do, the way that we can look at the differences, what we think, could that be forwarded to the committee here? Of course, yeah, no problem. You talked about products coming in and that they're stringent checks. How much of the products coming from third countries, what percentage is checked? There's 100% like a paper check. No, no, no. I'm on about physical. Well, you see, like, before a product, I would leave a third country. Like, all the paperwork has to be gathered up. Yeah, I know that, yeah. And the certification body in that third country has to be satisfied, like, that the product has all the paperwork and licensing and came from an organic farm or processed in an organic, and all those activities have been licensed and have been traced. That product then, like, it is up to every member state then to decide in terms of, like, the actual testing of those products. But, like, all those products then have to be imported through a border control point in every member state. So, like, ever before it arrives, like, the paperwork has to be sent. Yeah, I know the paperwork, yeah. Yeah, we're well aware of that. And as I said, the EU has identified... I'm asking one question. Of all the organic foods that come in from third countries, what percentage is checked by either Europe or the member state? That's what I'm asking. The physical... I know the paperwork, what you're saying, yeah, you're on the percent rate, but the other part I'm looking for is what percentage is physically checked. I don't have figures that be on the exact percentage that... Would it be possible to get them for us? Yes, of course. Yeah, well, we can get them for what we've done. We have figures ourselves in terms of... Yeah, but just in the whole... In Europe, just to know, like, I wouldn't be awful... I would have one concern that Europe seems to be hell-bonded on doing deals with third countries. And in my opinion, they're closing the eyes, as is being said, that we're giving countries time to come in to the same levels as ourselves. And that's why it would be great if you can give it to the chair and the secretaries of our committee, the rules on the different 11 countries that we can compare. And thanks for your time. Yeah, I will say there is a physical check, though. Every goods that comes in is looked at. It may not be tested, but they're looked at to see that they're all labelled correctly. Like, we will not leave a product into the country, like, if it's an organic product that arrives in our port, or Dublin airport, or somewhere else in our border control points, unless that is physically inspected to have all the necessary labels and paper. I want to be clear about that, Deputy. Sorry. Just to know, the most thing we're interested in is meat, chicken and beef. We're interested to know, or I'm interested to know, and I'll speak for myself, in the percentage that's physically checked coming in to both Europe and to Ireland in relation to that. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy. Thank you.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
