European public canteens serve millions of meals daily, from school dining halls to hospital cafeterias, yet the rules governing what food those institutions buy have long pushed purchasers toward the cheapest bid. A new EU Public Procurement Act (PPA) changes that calculus, at least on paper, by replacing the lowest-price default with a broader quality measure and, for the first time, explicitly recognising organic products as contributing to EU environmental and social objectives.
IFOAM Organics Europe, the Brussels-based umbrella group for the organic sector, welcomed the reference to organic food but said the regulation still falls short of making sustainable procurement the norm across the bloc.
A long-overdue mention for food
Public procurement accounts for roughly 14 per cent of EU gross domestic product, yet food has rarely featured prominently in procurement directives. The old framework, shaped by single-market logic, treated a kilogram of carrots the same way it treated a kilogram of steel: the contract went to whoever offered the lowest price. The PPA now names food procurement directly and acknowledges that organic products can serve environmental and social goals, a step IFOAM regards as significant even if the wording stops well short of mandating organic purchasing.
The logic is straightforward. Public money, the argument runs, should buy public goods. If a city council spends its catering budget on organic pulses from a regional cooperative rather than conventionally grown imports, it supports shorter supply chains, reduces pesticide runoff and keeps money circulating locally. Dóra Drexler, president of IFOAM Organics Europe, put the case in terms of externalities: sustainable procurement generates environmental, social and economic benefits that cheap food purchasing ignores.
Best-Price Quality Ratio replaces lowest price
The single most consequential shift in the PPA is the end of lowest price as the default award criterion. Under the previous rules, public buyers could use quality-based criteria, but they had to justify doing so. The default was price alone, which made it risky for procurement officers to favour organic or locally sourced products, however strong the wider case.
The PPA replaces that default with the Best-Price Quality Ratio (BPQR), which requires purchasers to weigh price against quality factors. Eduardo Cuoco, director of IFOAM Organics Europe, called the change significant, noting that it gives public buyers and national authorities more room to favour high-quality products such as organic ones.
In practice, however, the shift may be less dramatic than it sounds. The BPQR concept has existed in EU procurement guidance for years; what changes is its status from an option to the default. Whether that changes behaviour in town halls and regional authorities across the continent depends on how the ratio is interpreted and whether quality is defined to include environmental and social standards.
The 35-to-1 health claim
IFOAM cites case studies suggesting that every euro invested as a one-time investment in sustainable food procurement can generate up to 35 euros of saving on health costs annually. The figure is striking, and Drexler used it to argue that public money spent on organic food pays for itself many times over in reduced diet-related disease.
The claim deserves scrutiny. The 35-euro figure appears to come from specific pilot projects, and IFOAM did not publish the underlying methodology alongside its statement. Public health economics is littered with ambitious cost-saving ratios that collapse under closer examination, particularly when one-off studies are generalised across diverse healthcare systems. The direction of the argument, that better food in institutional settings reduces chronic disease, is plausible. The precise multiplier is harder to verify.
Derogation clauses and vague definitions
IFOAM's enthusiasm is tempered by what it sees as two significant weaknesses in the PPA. First, the BPQR is undermined by broad derogation clauses that allow purchasers to revert to lowest-price criteria in circumstances the proposal does not tightly define. If a procurement officer can invoke a derogation whenever the organic option costs more, the default rule becomes optional in practice.
Second, the definition of "quality" in the BPQR is too vague to guarantee that environmental and social standards feature in every public procurement contract. Without a clear definition, quality could mean taste, appearance, or shelf life rather than organic certification, fair labour practices, or low carbon footprint. IFOAM argues that the absence of a precise definition leaves the door open for interpretation that strips the provision of its intended effect.
No pathway to binding standards
Perhaps the most consequential criticism is that the PPA provides no mechanism for environmental or social criteria to become binding in future. The current proposal sets a direction of travel but builds no runway. EU legislation often uses a two-step approach: an initial framework followed by delegated or implementing acts that add specificity. IFOAM notes that the PPA contains no such provision, meaning that moving from voluntary encouragement to mandatory standards would require fresh legislation.
That matters because voluntary approaches to green public procurement have produced patchy results across the EU. Some member states, notably Denmark and Sweden, have run ambitious organic procurement programmes for years. Others have done almost nothing. Without binding thresholds, the gap between northern and southern European practice is likely to persist.
What this means for farmers and supply chains
IFOAM frames the PPA as a question of food sovereignty as much as procurement reform. Stable public demand for organic products, it argues, strengthens farmers' economic viability and reduces dependence on imported inputs such as synthetic fertilisers and animal feed. The argument has force: the EU imports significant volumes of animal feed and organic raw materials that could be produced domestically if demand signals were clearer.
Yet the PPA's impact on farmers depends entirely on whether public purchasers actually change their buying patterns. A framework that encourages organic sourcing but allows derogations and leaves "quality" undefined may produce little shift on the ground. Farmers who convert to organic production on the expectation of public contracts could find themselves competing against conventional suppliers who undercut on price under a derogation.
People mentioned
-
Dóra Drexler
-
Eduardo Cuoco
Organisations
IFOAM Organics Europe
