The European Union is on the verge of weakening its own position in global organic trade. As trilogue negotiations begin on a revision of the Organic Regulation, the Council and the European Parliament have both backed changes that would tighten import conditions for organic products, even as they agree to extend the very trade equivalence agreements that make those imports possible. The contradiction has not been lost on the industry.
A revision built on competing aims
The European Commission put forward its targeted revision of the Organic Regulation last year, with the stated aim of making the organic sector more competitive. The Organic Processing and Trade Association Europe, known as OPTA Europe, initially welcomed the push for simplification. But the trade body quickly flagged that several provisions, particularly those touching on international commerce, would create more problems than they solved.
Months on, the legislative picture has sharpened. The Council and the Parliament have each adopted their positions, and both have chosen to add conditions for imported organic products and ingredients seeking to carry the EU organic logo under existing equivalence arrangements. At the same time, both institutions endorsed the Commission's plan to extend the duration of those equivalence agreements, though they have yet to settle on how long the extension should last.
Smallholder eligibility improves
Not everything in the co-legislators' positions is causing alarm. OPTA Europe has welcomed changes to the eligibility criteria for groups of operators, a mechanism that allows smallholder farmers to participate in the EU organic market through collective certification rather than individual audits. Both the Council and the Parliament broadened the alternative criteria, which should make it easier for small producers in developing countries to maintain access to European organic supply chains.
That improvement matters. Organic certification is expensive, and the cost falls disproportionately on small farms. Loosening the rules for operator groups was one of the few areas where the institutions moved in a direction the sector had been advocating.
The tolerance that disappeared
The problem lies elsewhere. The Commission's original proposal included a 5% tolerance allowing processed organic foods bearing the EU logo to contain non-compliant ingredients sourced from countries with equivalence agreements. That provision recognised a practical reality: supply chains are long, ingredient origins are not always perfectly documented, and a small margin of flexibility kept products on shelves without compromising organic integrity.
Both co-legislators removed it. The result is a zero-tolerance approach for non-compliant ingredients from equivalent third countries in processed organic products that carry the EU logo. In theory, this raises the bar for imports. In practice, it may simply make it harder for European processors to source ingredients they need.
Unilateral changes to bilateral agreements
The deeper concern is diplomatic. The EU's organic equivalence agreements with countries including the United States, Canada and Japan were negotiated bilaterally. Each side agreed to recognise the other's organic standards as equivalent, allowing products certified under one regime to be sold under the other's label without duplicate certification.
By adding new conditions for imported products to qualify for the EU organic logo, the Council and Parliament are effectively altering the terms of those agreements without renegotiating them. The assumption, apparently, is that trading partners will accept the revised conditions. That is not guaranteed.
Aurora Abad, Secretary General of OPTA Europe, put the risk plainly. "If major export markets such as the United States consider these changes to be a unilateral modification of the organic equivalence arrangements agreed with the EU, there is a real risk of retaliatory measures against EU organic products," she said.
The numbers explain why this matters. The United States alone imports roughly €1.1 billion of European organic products each year, giving the EU a substantial trade surplus in the category. Jeopardising that surplus would be an odd outcome for a regulation intended to strengthen competitiveness.
Certification chaos waiting to happen
Even if trading partners accept the new terms, the operational consequences have barely been discussed. Whether the permitted share of non-compliant imported ingredients is 5% or zero, operators will still need to distinguish between ingredients that meet the additional EU requirements and those that do not. That means traceability systems must change, and information about ingredient compliance must travel from the point of origin through every link in the supply chain to the final food manufacturer.
None of this happens by itself. The secondary legislation governing certification and controls will need to be adjusted. Operators in both the EU and third countries will need transitional periods to comply. Yet, according to OPTA Europe, these practical implementation questions have received scant attention during the legislative process.
What trilogue must resolve
The trilogue negotiations now under way between the Commission, the Council and the Parliament will determine the final text. OPTA Europe is pressing negotiators to retain the improvements on operator group eligibility while undoing the damage on trade. The industry body wants the 5% tolerance restored and the additional import conditions removed from the equivalence framework.
There is also the question of the equivalence agreement extensions. Both co-legislators backed an extension, but the length remains undecided. A short extension would keep the pressure on to renegotiate the agreements entirely; a longer one would provide stability but delay a more fundamental overhaul of how the EU recognises foreign organic standards.
The sector's fear is straightforward: that the final regulation will deliver the worst of both worlds, tighter import rules that provoke trading partners, without the practical implementation measures needed to make those rules workable. As things stand, that is where the text is heading.
People mentioned
-
Aurora Abad
Organisations
Organic Processing and Trade Association Europe · European Commission · Council of the European Union · European Parliament
