Proceedings 28Th International Meeting Quality Control Fruit And

Proceedings

9. - 11. 03. 2009, Bonn, Germany

27th International Meeting Quality Control Fruit & Vegetables

Federal Office of Agriculture and Food [Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung] Deichmanns Aue 29 53179 Bonn Germany Division 413

E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.ble.de Phone: +49 (0)2 28 68 45 - 3927 Fax: +49 (0)2 28 68 45 - 39 45

Redaktion Referat 413

The Proceedings of the International Meeting Quality Control of Fruit and Vegetables are copyrighted. No part of these Proceedings may be reproduced, copied, translated, electronically stored, processed, duplicated or dissemi- nated without the written permission of the Federal Office of Agriculture and Food.

This proceedings is as of

Spring 2009

Meeting

International Meeting Quality Control Fruit and Vegetables, 09. - 11. March 2009, Bonn, Germany

Welcome address 4 Volker Raddatz

Marketing Standards being in Flux 6 Dr. Peter Sutor

Simplification of Standards and Inspection for Fruit and Vegetables in the EU 8 Dr. Ulrike Bickelmann

UNECE - Commercial Agricultural Quality Standards 16 Serguei Malanitchev

EC Marketing Standard for Pears 27 Reinhild Fänger

Diversity of Pear Varieties 29 Andreas Zschammer

Some aspects of quality production of pear in France 34 Sandrine Codarin

Marketing standard for pears and quality production in Chile 35 Edmundo Araya

EC Marketing Standard for Sweet Peppers 41 Hans-Georg Levin

Sweep peppers - quality production in Turkey 45 Neslihan Ataş

Sweet peppers – Quality production in the Netherlands 48 Gerrit Jan Kornet

General Marketing Standard for Fruit and Vegetables 54 Heinrich Stevens

The Future of UNECE Standards in the EC 66 Dr. Ulrike Bickelmann

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007– panel discussion – 71 Sandrine Valentin, Christiane Henning, Dr. Lajos Nemeth, István Ecsedi, Dr. Andreas Brügger, Karl Schmitz, Dr. Peter Sutor

Quality production of pineapples in ACP countries 78 Denis Felicite-Zulma

Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection 81 Franz Egerer, Mat Kersten, Heinrich Stevens

How to crack quality problems by inspection 91 Mat Kersten

Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection– panel discussion – 93 Mat Kersten, Jaime Camps Almeñiana, Ian Hewett, Dr. Ulrike Bickelmann

Speakers 97

Welcome address Volker Raddatz

Ladies and gentlemen, the time from 1st July 2009. And really all of those that will implement the new EC law are On behalf of the Working Group on Quality gathering here. A little more than half of the Control of Fruit, Vegetables and Ware Pota- participants come from ministries or public toes and the Federal Agency for Agriculture control bodies. The circle is made complete and Food organising this event, I welcome by representatives of production, of whole- you at the 27th International Meeting on sale and retail trade as well as the private Quality Control of Fruit and Vegetables. control bodies. With 250 persons, consumers form the largest group; after all, we are all Allow me to briefly introduce myself. My consumers. However, it is good to know that name is Volker Raddatz, and I head the Di- also a representative of the associations of rectorate-General 4 of the BLE, as such being consumer protection has joined this meeting. responsible for authorisation and control pro- So all that are in a way concerned by the regu- cedures and the central information services lations next days’ information and discus- for the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture sions will focus on are present in this place. and Consumer Protec-tion and its area of responsibility. My tasks also include the quality The regulation will be a leitmotiv of the meet- control of plant products, and today it is my ing. Today the regulation’s basic elements honour and pleasure to guide you through will be dealt with. Tomorrow everything will the morning programme. turn on the general marketing standard, the text of which gives a harmless impression, I am glad that again so many of you have but which, as a matter of fact, proves to be accepted the invitation to this event and are rather tricky when a closer look is taken. It is here today. 250 participants from 23 coun- with good reason that this general market- tries are gathering in this hall. For this meeting standard has been notified to the WTO ing this is a record par-ticipation, which we by the Commission. During all three days the certainly owe to the event’s central topic of UNECE will, through their standards, provide „Marketing Standards being in Flux“. With the background, and we will hear about and a delegate from the Commission and rep- discuss not only the organisation and their resentatives coming from 17 countries, the working methods, but also the possible devel- European Union accounts for the biggest opment and significance of their standards. part, what, too, is a sign that the announced change in the field of marketing standards On each day some individual marketing in the EU has now brought those to Bonn standards will be slipped in. We will deal with that are chiefly con-cerned. The marketing sweet pears, sweet pepper and sweet pineap- standards are indispensable in international ples, thus stretching from fruits of temperate trade, which is demonstrated by our guests climes to those of the tropics and subtropics. from Chile, Morocco, Switzerland, South Africa, Turkey and the US. Beside this meet- In this moment we are excited to hear the ing, all country representatives in this hall talks, and I may here thank all lecturers for have two other important panels where having taken the time to prepare presenta- they can meet and talk about the marketing tions and, partly, undertook long journeys to standards, namely the UNECE and the OECD. provide this meet-ing with contents and con- Both organisa-tions are represented here and tribute interesting topics to our programme. will carefully analyse the ‘vibrations’ during The talk on „Private Stan-dards“, planned this meeting to take a stand in their practical for today, had to be removed from the pro- work accordingly. gramme at short notice as Mr Wunder-lich from UNCTAD couldn’t come to the meeting You all have come to Bonn to, first and fore- for health reasons. most, discuss and analyse the changes that were firmly established in EC legislation for In line with tradition this year‘s opening talk will be held by a representative of a Federal

State - I thus may ask Dr. Sutor to come up to the rostrum. Dr. Sutor heads the area of responsibility of the cereals, fruit, vegetables and potato sector of the Institute for Food Production and Market at the Bavarian State Research Centre for Agriculture in Munich. His professional background al-lows him to shed light particularly on the economic aspect of marketing standards and to famil- iarise us with the theme of „Marketing Stand- ards being in Flux“.

Marketing Standards being in Flux Dr. Peter Sutor

Doing away from 1st July, 2009, with a ma- and vegetables that are produced in highly jor part of the specific European marketing developed countries only the production of standards for fruit and vegetables with the high-grade levels of quality covers costs. aim of simplifying both standards and controls gives rise to controversies in European Why then are standards losing impor- countries’ food industries. There is still no tance, or at least seem to lose it? agreement on whether this reform destroys existing structures and a coherent level of The term „quality“, and thus quality stand- quality, or whether it creates new opportuni- ards, is subject to continual change. There are ties. several reasons for this:

Today, consumers’ and trade’s demands in terms of quality can only partly cover present standards. Besides product quality, which is first and foremost defined through standards, the ensuring of a high process quality has become the centre of attention. The latter is a consequence of a product liabil- ity that has been changed throughout Europe Figure 1: Imports into Germany in % of the usable production and according to which primary production from third countries or EU member states regarding fruit and vegetables is obligated to prove the harmlessness of its products - fruit and vegetables - in case of Fair trade with products requires generally doubt. A consequence of this provision, which accepted (quality) standards, which form the is monitored and supported especially by en- basis for production and provide sufficient vironmental organizations, is that admitted transparency, especially on an increasingly maximum residue limits, which have increas- globalised market. Moreover, standards ingly imposed themselves as an instrument lay the foundations of a sufficient level of for standardization, are complied with or, if competition and ensure that producers can possible, remained considerably below. access fruit and vegetables markets. For these Another consequence is the introduction of reasons standards for fruit and vegetables, quality systems that accompany the entire too, are a generally accepted part within production, harvesting, storage and market- the framework of the agreements of WTO ing process, and thus cover all aspects related Member States and the Member States of the to legal provisions on safety. In the context European Union. of these developments and qualities, which The 54 standards available today, which were in the last years improved, or at least didn’t developed by the UNECE, are virtually iden- deteriorate (cp. Figure 2) – certainly depend- tical with the current 36 and the ten future ing on weather conditions during the year –, special marketing standards of the European product quality has become somewhat less Union. important. Furthermore, standards form the basis for The globalisation strongly increasing in fruit price discovery by creating ways to objective- and vegetables trade is another reason for the ly assess quality, and pay for it accordingly. apparently decreasing importance of gener- This includes grouping products into differ- ally accepted standards for fruit and vegeta- ent classes and categories like Extra, I and II. bles. It requires among other things a close At least for expensive fruit and vegetables relation between production and business products like cherries, strawberries, aspara- strategy so that trading enterprises have a gus or tomatoes, there are different price sufficient amount of goods of „their“ quality levels applying to individual levels of quality standards in competition. and grading. In this connection the statement can be made that, as a rule, regarding fruit

provisions on presentation and grading will be accepted by trade, and whether consumers in the midst of the financial crisis will put up with a deteriorated transparency of markets.

Even with regard to these changed aspects, standards serving as guidelines for the assessment of quality can’t be done without, also if their importance is primarily indirect.

Figure 2: Results of conformity checks on apples in Bavaria from 2000 to 2008, in % of the checked amount

These private quality standards, as a rule, include a combination of safety-related and quality-related features which are derived from the legal situation - and therefore from the standards -, and which are adapted (or stepped up) for each enterprise according to their marketing strategies to score on markets that are saturated with goods.

Moreover, there are new quality standards the effects of which can be compared to those of general standards, as for instance state- controlled ecological production, indications of geographical origin or trademarks, which set certain quality standards that are defined differently.

The greater variety of marking, standardization and classification instruments considerably expands the range of products meeting consumers‘ demands. However, apprehen- sions are felt that consumers won‘t be able to cope with this variety that the comparability of goods will be lost, and that competition will be restricted, possibly to the consumer‘s disadvantage.

It mustn’t be forgotten that our present level of quality wouldn’t have been reached without marketing standards. The special marketing standards and the UNECE standards have, in connection with other legal provisions, contributed to today’s appreciation and quality, which tends to improve. However, it needs to be said that in the future the certainly growing number of private standards of individual trading enterprises and other minimum standards will be based on the standardization work of the UNECE, the EU and the Member States. Now what remains interesting is the question whether the option, provided by the general marketing standards, to forgo both levels of quality (classes) and

Simplification of Standards and Inspection for Fruit and Vegetables in the EU Dr. Ulrike Bickelmann The Regulation (EC) No 1221/2008 was publis- Products covered by the marketing stan- hed in the Official Journal of the European dards Union on 5 December 2008. This regulation did reorganise the Regulation (EC) No For the fruit and vegetables sector it is import- 1580/2007 and the whole system of marke- ant to know which products are covered by ting standards for fresh fruit and vegetables the regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 and related and their control. Simplification, flexibility to marketing standards and inspection. and reduction of administrative input are the elements that will shape the systems of Legally, this question is easy to answer: The standards and inspection from 1 July 2009 – provisions related to marketing standards the date when the amendments come into and inspection cover the products listed application. in annex I part IX of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. Since the amendments have been published in the Official Journal, the ones who In the practical approach it is not that easy as are concerned – i.e. the inspection services, the table is based on the CN-codes. Unfortu- the wholesale and retail trade as well as the nately, apart from customs authorities and producers – wrestle with the new rules and carriers nearly nobody knows the CN-codes requirements. It is necessary to read the text by heart. Moreover, the CN-codes are not carefully and to discuss it again and again in always that clear as they are supposed to be. order to capture all its possibilities. There are quite a number of CN-codes that cover a mixture of products, such as “CN-code Consolidated excerpt of the regulation 0709 90 90 other vegetables”. Customs authorities usually run information offices that The Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food help to find the correct CN-codes in unclear (BLE) did approach this text very pragmatic cases. However, it is advisable to read the ex- and did produce a consolidated version of planatory notes to the Combined Nomencla- Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 coming into ture that are published every two years by the force from 1 July 2009 – but only as an excerpt EC Commission; the last one being published related to articles 1 to 20a and the annexes I to in the Official Journal No C 133 of 30.05.2008. VI. These parts are exactly the parts related to marketing standards and inspection. All this information helps to sharpen the contours of the list of products. But it does The BLE did the same for the basic regula- not reveal that a number of products of the tion, the Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector are not covered by version being in force since 1 July 2008 and this regulation on marketing standards and important for the sector marketing standards inspection. Therefore, the BLE did compile and control of fruit and vegetables: articles 1, a negative list comprising all products of 113, 113a, 121, 194-196 and the annex I part IX. the fruit and vegetable trade that are clearly Both excerpts are available as meeting docu- not covered by these marketing standards: ments and on the website of the BLE: www. products that are not covered by annex I part ble.de – Kontrolle und Zulassung – Qualitäts- IX of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 or clearly kontrolle – Einfuhr- und Ausfuhrkontrolle. exempted by article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. This negative list is available as The BLE explicitly points out that these texts meeting document and on the website of the do only have informal character and only the BLE (see above). regulations published in the Official Journal are legally valid.

Anyway, for herbs it is obviously necessary to establish a positive list: CN-Code Product (fresh or chilled)1

0703 90 00 Leeks and other alliaceous vegetables

Chinese chives (Allium tuberosum), chives (Allium schoenoprasum), Ramsons or wood garlic (Allium ursinum) 0709 40 00 90 Chinese celery or cutting celery (Apium graveolens var. secalinum Alef.) 0709 90 90 other vegetables e.g.

bee balm, lemon balm (Melissa officinalis), chervil (Anthriscus cerefolium), coriander (Coriandrum sativum), various types of cress [e. g. garden cress (Lepid- ium sativum), watercress (Nasturtium officinale), winter cress (Barbarea verna), nasturtium or Indian cress (Tropaeolum majus)], dill (Anethum graveolens), lemongrass (Cymbogopon citratus), lovage (Levisticum officinale), cultivated or sweet marjoram (Origanum majorana), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), oxalis (Oxalis crenata), parsley (Petroselinum crispum), common purslain (Portulaca oleracea), rock stonecrop (Sedum reflexum), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), salad burnet (Sanguisorba minor), savory (Satureja hortensis and Satureja montana), scurvygrass (Cochlearia officinalis), sorrel (Rumex acetosa), southernwood (Artemisia abrotanum), tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus) ex 0910 99 thyme 1211 90 85 basil (Ocimum basilicum), wild marjoram or oregano (Origanum vulgare), mint (Mentha spp.), sage (Salvia officinalis) 1) pursuant to article 113a of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 dried products are excluded from the marketing standards 2) vervain (Verbena spp.), rue (Ruta graveolens), hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis) and borage (Borago officinalis) are herbs that pursuant to the explanatory notes to the combined nomenclature of the European Communities (OJ C 133 of 30.05.2008) explicitly fall under code 1211 but pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 these herbs do not fall under the sector fruit and vegetables.

By the way, this regulation and the general like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage” of standard do cover herbs in pots, provided Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. they are intended for food purposes. This con- clusion is in accordance with the definition of Article 2a “food” pursuant to article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the principles and Specific marketing standards: requirements of food law, establishing the The situation for products covered by specific European Food Safety Authority and laying marketing standards from 1 July 2009 is clear down procedures in matters of food safety. In and unambiguous. These ten products are this regulation food is defined as “plants after specified in article 2a(2) and the marketing harvest”. standards published in annex I part B of Regu- According to BLE‘s opinion, for herbs in pots lation (EC) No 1580/2007. that are destined to be used as food, the harvest of herbs in pots is their removal from These specific marketing standards are based production. on the relevant UNECE standards. The EC Commission is prepared to harmonise their Herbs in pots intended for decoration or specific marketing standards with the respec- planting purposes are covered by CN-code tive UNECE standards. 0602 90 30 and thus annex I part XIII “live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots and the

General marketing standard UNECE standards can be downloaded in their actual version: www.unece.org/trade/agr/ Nearly all other products of the fruit and ve- welcome.htm. The German translation of getable trade have to comply with the gene- the UNECE standards will be available on this ral marketing standard published in annex website before 1 July 2009. I part A of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. In a very practical approach the simple rule is: Private standards products covered neither by a specific marketing standard nor by the negative list of BLE The industry may use private standards. But are covered by the general marketing stan- with respect to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007, dard. the inspection services of the member states may apply only the general standard or the Pursuant to article 113a(1) of Regulation (EC) UNECE standards. Therefore, it is recommen- No 1234/2007, the general marketing stan- ded that the private standards are based on dard guarantees that fruit and vegetables the UNECE standards, i.e. a private standard are offered and marketed in “sound, fair and may be stricter but not be more generous marketable quality”. To fulfil these conditi- than the relevant UNECE standard. ons, the general marketing standard com- prises provisions on minimum quality requi- Pursuant to the German Law on marketing rements, minimum maturity requirements, standards, the German holders have to take tolerances and marking. care, that the labelling does not pretend the application of a (non existing) legally binding The provision concerning marking does standard. only require the indication of the country of origin. The indication of the packer and/or UNECE standards in the inspection of the dispatcher is principally not required. Howe- EU ver, this indication is required pursuant to Directive 2000/13/EC. For open sales packages What does this option mean to the traders and packages other than sales packages the and inspection services of the member states? indication of the packer/dispatcher cannot be The traders must grade, sort and label the demanded. products covered by the general marketing standard in accordance with this standard. As the general marketing standard is valid for However, the traders may grade, sort and quite a number of products, this standard is label the same products in accordance with short, simple and contains – by definition – no the relevant UNECE standard. In these cases, product specific provisions. Moreover, it does the traders have the advantage of using the not comprise rules for classification. Because classification as well as the product specific of its shortness and simplicity, the general provisions and tolerances provided in the marketing standard is more strict for some UNECE standards. products than the relevant UNECE standard. The inspection services of the member states UNECE standards have to inspect the products covered by the general marketing standard for their con- Therefore, article 2a of Regulation (EC) No formity with this standard. The inspection 1580/2007 provides an option for the opera- follows article 20 and annex VI of Regulation tors: “However, where the holder is able to (EC) No 1580/2007. show they are in conformity with any applicable standards adopted by the United Nations In case the standard is met, the conformity Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), with the general marketing standard is certi- the product shall be considered as confor- fied and the inspection pursuant to Regula- ming to the general marketing standard.” tion (EC) No 1580/2007 is concluded. This is the case, even when the product might be The UNECE provides for standards for fresh graded and labelled in accordance with the fruit and vegetables and for dry and dried UNECE standard. products. Only a certain number of standards is of relevance in the context of Regulation In case the general marketing standard is (EC) NO 1580/2007 (table 1). The existing met, the conformity with a class (UNECE

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Simplification of Standard and Inspection for Fruit and Vegetables in the EU 11 standard) indicated on the package can only commercial type and/or size). In most of the by checked pursuant to the Food and Feed cases it will be economically not worthwhile Law (article on protection against deception). to re-grade a rejected lot in accordance with a UNECE standard. The decision in favour of In case a product is not in conformity with the a UNECE standard has to be taken – for eco- general marketing standard and the holder nomic reasons – at the first level of packing is able to show that the product has been and marketing and before the inspection. graded in accordance with a UNECE standard, the inspection service of the member state Article 3 checks whether the products complies in total (i.e. minimum requirements, classifica- Paragraph 1a tion, tolerances, presentation and labelling) with this UNECE standard. In this context it is The regulation provides for exemption from necessary to point to the fact that neither the the compliance with the marketing stand- Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 nor the UNECE ards. On all levels of distribution, products in- standard requires a special type of labelling tended for industrial processing, animal feed the class, such as “UNECE class I”. The mere in- and other non-food uses are exempted from dication of the class is allowed and sufficient. the compliance with the general and specific marketing standards. In these cases, the In case the UNECE standard is met, the con- holder has to prove the intended use against formity certificate is issued certifying that the the inspection service. general marketing standard is met. In case of non conformity with the UNECE standard, Anyway, when marketing animal feed, the a protocol of non conformity is issued. The Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on hygiene of reason for rejection is “pursuant to article 2a foodstuffs has to be respected. Pursuant to of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 the lot is nei- annex II, chapter IX “provisions applicable to ther in conformity with the general market- foodstuffs”, No 8 of this regulation, “hazard- ing standard nor with the UNECE standard for ous and/or inedible substances, including ani- the given product”. The prosecution in case of mal feed, are to be adequately labelled and infringements is based on the national provi- stored in separate and secure containers.” sions. In Germany, this is the Regulation on Paragraph 1b EC Standards for Fruit and Vegetables being under revision in these days. Products marketed by the producer on his holding to consumers for their personal use By the way, in case of products covered by the are exempted from the general and specific general marketing standard and for which a marketing standards. In this case, the proof is UNECE standard does not exist, the non con- offered by the place of the transaction, i.e. the formity with the general marketing standard producer’s premise. All transactions on other cannot be cured by application of a private places are public markets and not covered by standard. this exemption. In general, the trader has the option to re- Paragraph 1c grade a lot being rejected because of non conformity with the general marketing Moreover, the regulation provides for an ex- standard. Which possibilities are realistic in emption of products of a given region which this case? As downgrading is not possible, the are sold by the retail trade of the region for rule will be re-grading of the non complying well established traditional local consump- lot. But pursuant to article 3(1a) it is possible tion. While integrating the marketing stand- to deliver this lot – without any further grad- ard for strawberries into annex I part B of the ing – to industrial processing, animal feed or Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007, the existing other non-food uses. Theoretically there is an exemption granted for Denmark and Sweden option to grade the lot in accordance with the to market strawberries that easily lose their relevant UNECE standard which might even- calyx without calyx has been withdrawn. In tually grant an allowance for more defects. case this exemption would be needed in fu- But this option is normally more demanding ture, the exemption must be applied for at the because of classification, sizing and label- EC-Commission. ling (eventually indication of the variety/

Paragraph 1d ty, size) shall be available before the purchase is concluded. The information particulars When applying the exemption for “ready to must be conspicuous and legibly. Pursuant eat” or “kitchen ready” prepared products, to article 5(1), the description of the product care must be taken that this preparation must (offer) as well as the order form must contain include some trimming or cutting. A headed the name of the product and the country of cabbage may be trimmed but this is not nec- origin. For products covered by the specific essarily a preparation to make this product marketing standards, the class and eventu- “kitchen ready”. On the contrary, beans cut at ally the variety or commercial type must be both ends are considered “kitchen ready”. indicated. As the buyer cannot visibly and Paragraph 2 personally check the product, the size should be indicated as well. Products sold or delivered by the grower to preparation and packaging stations or stor- Paragraph age facilities, or shipped from his holding Accompanying documents shall indicate the to such stations as well as products shipped country of origin for all products. The class from storage facilities to preparation and must be given in case of products covered by packaging stations are exempted from the the specific marketing standards. The variety general and the specific marketing standards or commercial type must only be indicated as long as the transport is within the growing when this is required by the relevant specific region. In Germany – by definition, the total standard. territory is one region of growing. In these cases, the holder has to prove the intended The indication of the class or variety based on use against the inspection service. a UNECE standard is not explicitly required but may be given on a voluntary basis. Paragraph 3 The member states may exempt products pre- For mixed packages, the indication of the sented at retail to consumers for their person- country of origin in the accompanying docu- al use from the specific marketing standards ments is mandatory. The country of origin provided they are labelled “product intended must be given in case all types in the mixed for processing” or with any other equivalent package are from the same country of ori- denomination (i. e. “for jam”). In Germany, gin. When the types contained in the mixed this exemption must be part of the national package originate in different countries, the Regulation on EC Standards for Fruit and regulation provides two options to label the Vegetables. country of origin: either each country of origin and next to the product concerned or the Paragraph 3a: indication “mix of EC fruit and vegetables”. The latter is explicitly authorised and thus From article 1 of the still existing EC market- applicable in the accompanying documents ing standards, the tolerance granted for too. In the interest of clarity, the indications products on marketing stages following dis- on the packages and in the accompanying patch and showing a slight lack of freshness documents should correspond. and turgidity and slight deterioration due to their development and their tendency to Article 5 perish has been transferred to article 3(3a) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. This tolerance At retail stage, the marking or labelling must is valid from 1 July 2009 for products covered be “conspicuous, adjacent to, legibly and in by the specific marketing standards only. such a way as not to mislead the consumer”. If these provisions are met through the label- Article 4 ling on the transport package or sales unit and an appropriate presentation of these Paragraph 3: packages, an additional note near the pro- In distance contracts (online purchase), the duce or at the shelf might not be necessary. information related to marketing standards However, the basic price and eventually the (country of origin and eventually class, varie- price of the sales unit must be indicated.

Article 6 covered by the general marketing standard may be fixed as “zero”, provided the risk that The indication of the country of origin is the produce might not comply to the general mandatory in case of mixed packages. If these marketing standard is regarded as rather low. mixes comprise produce originating in dif- In these cases, care should be taken, that a ferent countries, it is possible to indicate each check of this risk and the related “zero”-in- single country of origin. spection are not excluded by definition. Infor- However, it is allowed to replace this specific mation provided by other inspection bodies indication by a more generalised indication or complaints of consumers could initiate the of the countries of origin (e.g. “mixture of EC inspection of produce placed in the “zero” fruit and vegetables”). Although this is not risk group. explicitly specified in the regulation, it must be possible to just indicate “mixture of EC Article 11 fruit”, “mixture of EC vegetables”, “mixture Inspection authorities may grant the follow- of EC nuts”, or “mixture of EC herbs” to avoid ing to traders listed in the lowest risk category any misleading information. and providing sufficient guarantees for the The indication of the growing region may be compliance of the marketing standards: indicated on an optional basis, but it must • to use the label pursuant to annex II at not be misleading. This means that either the dispatch. single countries of origin and the relevant growing regions are indicated or – in case of • to sign the conformity certificate. a cross-border growing region – this refers to all countries of origin, which could be indi- • to use the label pursuant to annex II at cated as “mixture of EC fruit and vegetables”. dispatch and to sign the conformity certificate. The indication „mixture of fruit from Ger- many and EC“ is not allowed. As this indica- The relevance of the label pursuant to annex tion would highlight one country of origin II is not beyond any doubt. In the member but would not specify which produce is states being the main producing countries, originating in that special country. Therefore, this label is the sign that the relevant trader is this type of labelling of the country of origin classified as reliable and the frequency of gov- would be misleading. ernmental inspection is reduced. It may be allowed to question whether this decision must Article 10 be shown by a special label on the carton.

The conformity checks carried out by mem- Do traders or the inspection bodies have an ber states are selective and based on risk advantage, if the entitlement of signing the analysis. Each member state must establish certificate is granted to the trader? rules for an appropriate risk analysis compris- First of all, such a trader must fulfil a number ing all the produce listed in annex I part IX of of conditions: trained inspection staff must be regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. available, appropriate equipment for grading The rules of this risk analysis must be applied and packing must be available, all produce by the competent authorities of the member must be checked before dispatch and these state and thus may lead to locally different inspections must be documented. The inspec- results with regard to traders, lots, quantities tion body must regularly check that these and/or products. conditions are met over time.

In the framework of the risk analysis, a mini- Why could traders be interested in such a mum quantity of traders or lots and/or quan- grant? This grant could accelerate the cus- tities that have to be inspected have to be toms clearance at import or export – as only defined for each risk category (even for the in these cases the traders need to have the category with the lowest risk). This minimum certificate of conformity. But the relevant quantity or minimum inspection rate must be trader would not save the time for inspection, defined especially for produce covered by the it’s only the time waiting for the inspector of specific marketing standards. On the con- the inspection authority to come. trary, the inspection frequency for produce

Why could an inspection body be interested valid for the specific marketing standards in such a grant? The inspection body would only. The German text should therefore be not have to inspect each lot prior to import or corrected accordingly. export. A few auditing visits per year would be sufficient. At import of produce covered by the specific marketing standards, the risk analysis For inspection bodies, the regulation provides must be applied. Pursuant to article 10(1) the an alternative being less demanding than the conformity certificate accompanying the approval of a trader. As in future, the selective produce from an approved third country is risk based inspections are valid for imports regarded as a risk minimising factor. and exports too. It is possible not to carry out inspections at these levels and to issue waiv- In case of produce covered by the general ers. It is possible to issue the waivers more fre- marketing standard, the risk analysis shall be quently in case of traders that would comply applied at import for produce from approved with the conditions for approval pursuant to third countries. It is up to the decision of the article 11. Thus, a few physical checks per year competent inspection body, whether an ac- could replace the relatively demanding proc- companying conformity certificate shall be ess of an approval. With respect to the selec- regarded as a risk minimising factor. tive risk based checks the approval of traders might not be really interesting – neither for Resume the trader nor for the inspection body. The provisions applicable from 1 July 2009 Article 12 cover the following goals: By definition, all produce covered by the gen- Simplification: Only 11 marketing standards eral and the specific marketing standards fall apply (10 specific, one general marketing under the selective risk based inspection at standard). The general marketing standard is import and export stage. Thus, at import and extremely simple and short and thus applica- export, the risk analysis decides or defines ble for nearly all produce traded in the fruit which produce or lots have to be inspected. and vegetable sector. The greater the confidence on conformity with the marketing standards is, the lower Flexibility: For the majority of produce of- the frequency of inspection will be. fered in the fruit and vegetable sector, traders may choose whether they want to apply the In case of produce destined for industrial general marketing standard or the relevant processing, the risk is related to the fact that UNECE-standard. However, this increase in the produce might be offered on the fresh flexibility requires an increase in knowledge market without respecting the relevant mar- and competence on both sides, the traders keting standard. To avoid this risk, it is possi- and the inspection bodies. ble to carry out identity checks. Produce with a low risk, destined for a known processing Reduction of administrative input: The input company and labelled properly may be cus- for inspection is clearly reduced by selective toms cleared with a waiver issued by the in- risk based inspections. This is especially im- spection body. In all other cases, the importer portant as the basket of produce covered by must proof the destination of the produce. the general marketing standard is extremely increased compared to the basket filled with Article 13 the 36 specific marketing standards applicable before 1 July 2009. The German text of article 13(1) is different from the English, French and Dutch text. The It will be interesting to follow, how these approval of third countries in the German three factors will influence the quality of fruit text is related to “conformity checks” while and vegetables in future in the European the other language versions restrict the ap- Union. proval to produce covered by “the specific marketing standards”.

The BLE assumes, that the approval shall be

Table 1:

Specific marketing UNECE standards that might replace the general marketing standard standard

Apples Almonds (Inshell) DDP-18 Garlic FFV-18

Pears Annonas FFV-47 Hazelnuts (Inshell) DDP-03

Strawberries Apricots FFV-02 Headed cabbages FFV-09

Kiwifruit Artichokes FFV-03 Horse-radish FFV-20

Sweet peppers Asparagus FFV-04 Leeks FFV-21

Peaches/nectarines Aubergines FFV-05 Mangoes FFV-45 Lettuce, curled endives, broad leaved Avocados FFV-42 Melons FFV-23 endives Table grapes Beans FFV-06 Onions FFV-25

Tomatoes Bilberries/blueberries FFV-07 Peas FFV-27 Citrus fruit (oranges, mandarin-group, Broccoli FFV-48 Pineapples FFV-49 lemons only)

Brussels sprouts FFV-08 Pistachio Nuts (Unshelled) DDP-09

Pistachio Nuts (Decorticated and Carrots FFV-10 decorticated peeled) DDP-10

Cauliflowers FFV-11 Plums FFV-29

Cherries FFV-13 Radishes FFV-43

Chinese cabbage FFV-44 Raspberries FFV-32

Citrus fruit FFV-14 (grapefruit, pummelos, Persian Ribbed celery FFV-12 limes only)

Courgettes FFV-41 Rhubarb FFV-40

Cucumbers FFV-15 Scorzonera FFV-33

Cultivated mushrooms FFV-24 Spinach FFV-34

Edible chestnuts FFV-39 Walnuts (Inshell) DDP-01

Fennel FFV-16 Watermelons FFV-37

Figues (fresh) FFV-17 Witloof chicory FFV-38

UNECE - Commercial Agricultural Quality Standards Serguei Malanitchev

The United Nations Economic Commission As a multilateral platform, UNECE brings to- for Europe, through its Working Party on gether 56 countries located in the European Agricultural Quality Standards, produces Union (EU), non-EU Western and Eastern commercial agricultural quality standards to Europe, South-Eastern Europe, the Common- facilitate international trade. wealth of Independent States (CIS), Israel and North America. Our standards promote sustainable production of quality produce, define minimum We promote pan-European economic inte- quality to keep unsatisfactory produce out of gration and cooperation as well as prosperity the market and improve profitability. They within and outside the region through: create market transparency and protect the interests of consumers. • Policy dialogue • Negotiation of international legal instru- They are used mainly by governments, pro- ments ducers, traders, importers and exporters, and international organizations. Although they • Development of regulations, standards are, in principle, not obligatory for practical and norms application, many European Union regula- • Exchange and application of best prac- tions refer to them, thus making them man- tices as well as economic and technical datory in all EU countries at export, import expertise and retail stages. Other countries also use them, eventually with amendments and • Technical cooperation for countries with modifications, as a basis for their national economies in transition. standards. The standards are widely used as references in international trade contracts. Our areas of expertise include such sectors as energy, environment, human settlements, Through its four Specialized Sections on population, statistics, timber, trade, and standardization of fresh fruit and vegetables, transport. Agricultural quality standards dry and dried produce, seed potatoes and are developed under the trade programme. meat, the Working Party provides a forum All United Nations Member States, as well as where countries can discuss any commercial professional and other non-governmental quality issues that may arise in their domestic organizations, may participate in our work. markets and have implications for international trade. 2. Aims of the UNECE Working Party on The activities of the Working Party and its Agricultural Quality Standards specialized sections are primarily of a techni- In view of the global character of commercial cal nature and complement policy-related agricultural quality standards, any member work undertaken by other international bod- of the United Nations or of one of its special- ies. ized agencies can participate, on an equal footing, in the activities of the Working 1. Development of agricultural quality Party2. Any country desiring to participate in standards is part of UNECE activities its work should notify the Executive Secretary of the UNECE, indicating the national focal The United Nations Economic Commission point for this work and the institution respon- for Europe (UNECE), based in Geneva, was set sible for quality control and a contact person. up in 1947 by the United Nations Economic NGOs accredited to the United Nations may and Social Council. We are one of the five also participate. regional commissions of the United Nations.1

1 The other four are: the Economic and Social Commis- The private sector may attend any “public” sion for Western Asia (ESCWA, Beirut), the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP, America and the Caribbean (ECLAC, Santiago) Bangkok), the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA, 2 Its Terms of Reference and Working procedures are Addis Ababa) and the Economic Commission for Latin available on: www.unece.org/trade/agr/welcome.htm

© BLE, IAT - 2009 UNECE - Commercial Agricultural Quality Standards 17 meeting but only as an observer. To take the (k) Convenes meetings of heads of na- floor or participate in discussions, they would tional quality control services. need to form part of a national delegation. (l) Develops the framework for and pro- The Working Party: motes mutual recognition of inspections by countries. (a) Draws up internationally agreed commercial quality standards for agricultural (m) Promotes communication between produce based on existing national standards governmental, inter-governmental and other and industry and trade practices. organizations implementing the standards and carrying out controls to make trading (b) Harmonizes the application of its simpler, smoother and more convenient for standards internationally by developing and traders. disseminating interpretative and explanatory material. Activities under (i) - (l) in the area of fresh fruit and vegetables are presently carried out by Explanatory material for fruit and vegetables the OECD Scheme. is currently developed by the OECD Scheme for the Application of International Standards 3. UNECE standards within the United Na- for Fruit and Vegetables (“OECD Scheme”) tions structure (c) Revises and amends existing standards to adapt them to changing production, Figure 1 shows the position of UNECE work trading and marketing conditions. on agricultural standards within the overall United Nations structure. (d) Cooperates with the WTO secretariat to ensure that the standard-setting process is Figure 1. Agricultural quality standards within the consistent with WTO rules. United Nations structure

(e) Cooperates with other standard- setting bodies, particularly with the Codex General Assembly Alimentarius Commission, to avoid duplica- Economic and Social Council tion of work and divergence in standards. Economic Commission for Europe (f) Undertakes research activities relevant to the development, implementation Committee on Trade and promotion of its standards. Working Party (g) Monitors the application of the stand- on Agricultural Quality Standards ards through reports from public administra- tions and the private sector.

(h) Promotes the standards and assists Governments with their practical application by organizing seminars, workshops and train- Specialized Sections on Standardization of ing courses.

Fresh (i) Defines and promotes uniform quali- Dry and Fruit and Seed ty-control procedures and the use of the mod- Dried Meat Vegeta- Potatoes el quality conformity certificate. Cooperates Produce with governmental, inter-governmental and bles other organizations implementing standards to achieve uniformity of inspection methods and comparability of results. 4. How UNECE develops standards

(j) Carries out voluntary peer reviews of The process of developing/revising UNECE national quality-control systems. agricultural quality standards, interpretative

© BLE, IAT - 2009 UNECE - Commercial Agricultural Quality Standards 18 and other material is illustrated in figure 2. cal application. The Working Party can adopt Decisions within the Working Party and spe- a standard without recommending it for a cialized sections are taken by consensus. trial period.

Any country can initiate work either on the In 2008 the Working Party started to discuss creation of a new or the revision of an existing restructuring its work so that standards could standard (brochure, guidelines). The proposal be delivered faster. The restructuring should

Figure 2. Process of developing UNECE standards

Specialized Rapporteurs prepare/ Specialized Section and Working Party agree amend text Section discusses text in detail

to create/amend a texts

Working Party decides whether to

approve tex

UNECE

UNECE recommendation on trial (for 1-2 standard, brochure, guidelines year period) made to the relevant Specialized Section must take into account the possible transfer of the contain a justification for why this new work OECD Scheme activities to UNECE and impli- or revision is necessary. If the Specialized cations of the EC Regulation No. 1580/2007 Section agrees, work on a revision can begin; on our agricultural quality standards work. for a new standard (brochure, guidelines), the The proposals that countries have sent us so proposal is transmitted to the Working Party far suggest the delegation of authority for ap- for approval. proving standards to the specialized sections and leaving to the Working Party items of a The task of revising a text or creating a new general and policy nature. standard (brochure, guidelines) is normally assigned to a working group, led by a rap- 5. Sixty years after: the core business re- porteur and composed of several delegations. mains unchanged Certain tasks, such as taking photographs for explanatory material, can be delegated to Back in 1949, when embarked on this work in external individuals or organizations. order to regulate trade within their borders, However, the decision about what to include countries were using national standards. in the final draft will be made by the work- Such standards existed for some products but ing group. The rapporteurs, in working on not for others. National regulations amount- the text, take into account comments from ed to non-tariff barriers to the rapidly grow- the delegations, and present the text to the ing post-war international trade. At UNECE Specialized Section for consideration. During we decided we would base our standards on the session, a standard (brochure, guidelines) harmonized versions of these national stand- may be revised based of the proposed text or ards to produce a common trading frame- referred back to the rapporteur for further work for sellers and buyers. discussion. At its first session, in October 1949, at the In the intersession period, delegations can joint proposal of the delegations of Italy send proposals for amendments or com- and Poland, our Committee on Agricultural ments on the draft to the rapporteur and the Problems set up a “Working Party on Stand- secretariat. Once the text is accepted by the ardization of Perishable Foodstuffs”, with the Specialized Section, it goes to the Working task of: Party for adoption either as a new or revised UNECE standard (brochure, guidelines), or as • determining common standards for per- a UNECE “recommendation”, with a trial pe- ishable foodstuffs riod of one or two years for testing its practi-

• studying steps to be taken on the interna- “Owing to the lack of time, the Working tional level in order to secure the gen- Party was unable to undertake a detailed eral adoption of standards and control examination of the reports submitted systems and, if necessary, of proceeding in regard to tomatoes, salad vegetables, with the preparation of an international peaches, apricots, plums, grapes and convention. citrus fruit. But meetings of experts were held between the Working Party’s ple- The Working Party met for the first time one nary meetings and final agreement was month later. The following countries and reached in the case of tomatoes, peaches organizations were represented: Belgium, and citrus fruit.” Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United The standards for peaches, apricots and States, Yugoslavia, UNESCO (United Nations plums were adopted in 1953. The first two Scientific and Cultural Organization), Inter- are on the agenda for the 2009 session of the national Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and ISO Specialized Section. (International Organization for Standardiza- tion). The discussion was on the desirability The core business of the Working Party, i.e. of having common standards and on control developing and maintaining standards, as systems to enforce such standards for perish- well as its method of work based on groups able produce moving in international trade. of experts led by a rapporteur country, has remained unchanged for 60 years. German experts, officially called “experts from the Western Zones of Occupation in By the beginning of the 1980s, the Working Germany” started to take part in the activities Party comprised 10 groups of experts, stand- of the Working Party from its second session ardizing: in February 1952. They formed part of the • Fresh fruit and vegetables United States delegation. • Dry and dried produce (fruit) Teams of experts with rapporteur countries • Dry and dried produce (vegetables) were created to work on the draft standards from the priority list: tomatoes (Italy), seed • Quick-frozen fruits (joint ECE/Codex Ali- and consumption potatoes (Netherlands), mentarius) salad (France), pears and apples (Belgium), • Fruit juices (joint ECE/Codex Alimentarius) peaches (France), apricots (France), plums (France), grapes (France), citrus fruit (Italy), • Seed potatoes cheese (France) and eggs (Netherlands). • Early and ware potatoes

The first two standards were published in • Eggs and egg products 1952, “Apples and pears” and “Seed and ware • Cut flowers potatoes”. In 2009, both standards are still • Poultry meat on the agenda. At its fifty-fifth session to be held in May 2009, the Specialized Section on Their annual sessions were often held in Standardization of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables member countries. And participation in their will discuss the figures on uniformity of ap- meetings was higher than in those of the ples by diameter in the section of the stand- Working Party itself. ard concerning sizing, and will revise the provisions on defects in colouring of pears in In the second half of the 1990s, as a result of a the standard for pears. reform of the UNECE, the Committee on Agri- Reconciling national positions in the texts of culture was abolished and the Working Party standards has always been time consuming. started to report to the Committee on Devel- The following abstract from the report of the opment of Trade (and after the 2005 reform, 1952 session could have been used, with some to the Committee on Trade). variations, in many subsequent reports of the The number of working groups of experts, Working Party: since 1999 called “specialized sections on standardization”, has been reduced to four:

© BLE, IAT - 2009 UNECE - Commercial Agricultural Quality Standards 20 for fresh fruit and vegetables, dry and dried The “General provisions” - the precursor of produce, seed potatoes, and meat. today’s Standard Layout - grouped under five major heading “the characteristics to be Since its creation, the Working Party has possessed, at the consignment stage, by bulk- developed: produced fruit and vegetables (excluding luxury produce) dispatched in packages in • 50 standards for fresh fruit and vegetables international traffic and normally intended to be eaten fresh”: • 20 for dry and dried produce 1. Definition of products • 1 for seed potatoes 2. General quality provisions • 9 for meat (a)minimum requirements (b) qu ality classification • 5 for eggs and egg products (currently under revision) 3. Sizing 4. Packaging and presentation • 8 on cut flowers (last revised in 1994). 5. Marking We publish our standards in English, French and Russian, our three official languages3. The minimum requirements provisions Some countries have asked us to publish on were defined as follows. the UNECE website standards in their national languages. Twelve standards are now “At the time of dispatch, fruit and vegetables available in Slovak and we are expecting to should in all cases fulfill the following mini- receive a certain number in German. mum requirements: (a) They should be healthy and sound, that The question of the stability of standards was is to say “commercially” free from blem- first formally addressed by the Working Party ishes liable to affect their natural powers of at its session in 1963, when the delegations resistance, such as traces of deterioration or decomposition, bruises or unhealed “agreed that while European Standards cracks. should not be regarded as unchangeable, nevertheless, in the interest of stability and (b) They should be “commercially” ripe, taking into account the difficulties some- that is to say have reached a degree of ma- times encountered in adapting national turity which, having regard to the type of legislation to the European Standards, they transport and length of journey, will permit should remain unchanged for a period of at them to arrive at their destination in a least two years after adoption by the Work- sound and edible condition. ing Party.” (c) They should be of normal size and appearance, having regard to the variety, Similar concerns are still being raised today. season and production area. 6. Origins of the Standard Layout (d) They should be whole, clean and free from foreign bodies or surface moisture.” At it second session, in 1952, the Working Party agreed that identical general provisions The quality classification of produce consist- could be formulated which are common to all ed of three classes with the following charac- fruits and vegetables. That led to the adop- teristics. tion of the following document, drawn up by France and Italy: “General provisions which- Extra Class may be applied in Europe for the commercial standardization and quality control of fresh Produce of superior quality, of the shape fruit and vegetables moving in international and colour characteristic of the variety, traffic”. virtually free from external blemishes and 3 All UNECE standards are downloadable from: www. packed with special care. unece.org/trade/agr/welcome.htm and can be used for free.

Class I the Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Europe of their accept- Produce “commercially” free from external ance of this Protocol adopt the general blemishes and carefully packed. provisions set forth below concerning the standardization of products and undertake Class II to ensure that they are put into effect for consignments to European countries within Produce “commercially” free from external one year, in accordance with the procedure blemishes and fulfilling the minimum gen- contemplated in Section III. eral requirements defined above. II. Text of general provisions - document Tolerances AGRI/WP.1/12.

A certain percentage of produce below the III. Each government accepting this Pro- standard for the class may be allowed in each tocol undertakes to take the necessary steps package; but this tolerance should not exceed under its domestic law to adapt its com- 5 per cent in number in the “Extra” class and modity standards to the general standards 10 per cent in classes I and II. set forth above under Section II. In so doing it shall also have regard to the individual 7. Origins of the Geneva Protocol standards to be prepared by the Working Party on Standardization of Perishable Already at its first session, the Working Party Foodstuffs on the basis of the foregoing had addressed “the matter of International general provisions. Convention(s) on Standardization of perishable products”. It agreed that when the time IV. On the expiry of the time-limit laid came for serious consideration of such inter- down, the Working Party shall examine the national convention(s) and if at a future date findings of each country on the manner in a convention was established on a regional which these commitments have been met basis, it should be so framed as to permit and the difficulties encountered. adaptation or expansion into a world-wide convention. V. The Working Party shall be responsible for: Four years later, at its fourth session in 1953, the Working Party decided to draw up a draft - drafting new individual standards and protocol on the standardization of fruit and where necessary amending the existing vegetables, which our Executive Secretary standards in the light of experience; would submit to governments for approval. - setting any necessary time-limits for their This document later evolved into the so- complete application in each country; called “Geneva Protocol”4. - making arrangements concerning the The Protocol, not being a convention, was organization of national controls with a intended to give a more formal and binding view to achieving uniformity of methods character to the recommendations adopted and results; by the Working Party; remaining, however, a - laying down the procedure for the revision particularly flexible legal form. The “general of the individual standards in the light of provisions” (i.e. the “standard layout” of that the technical and economic evolution of the time) formed the basis of the first version of European market. the Protocol, the text of which ran as follows. VI. The Working Party shall also be re- “PROTOCOL ON THE STANDARDIZATION OF sponsible for drawing up, whenever it thinks FRUIT AND VEGETABLES best, the clauses of an international agree- I. The Governments that have notified ment calculated to confer a definitive status on the European system of standardization 4 The revised 1985 version of Geneva Protocol on Stan- of fruit and vegetables.” dardization of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables and Dry and Dried Fruit is available at: www.unece.org/trade/agr/ info/gevprot/protoc_e.doc

In 1954, the UNECE Executive Secretary asked taken the form of the Terms of Reference and the competent authorities in the member Working Procedures, adopted in 2007. The countries to inform him whether they would control certificate has become the Conform- be able to agree to the application of the pro- ity Certificate, which was adopted in 2006. visions of the Protocol. By the eighth session In other words, the 1985 Geneva Protocol of the Working Party, in 1957, 15 countries document has become obsolete. However, had accepted the Protocol (Austria, Belgium, the term “Geneva Protocol” is still used in the Bulgaria, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, generic sense to refer to our activities in com- Italy, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Spain, Tur- mercial agricultural quality standards. key, USSR and Eastern Zone of Germany). The Working Party regularly carried out sur- Six countries, although they had not accepted veys of acceptance of standards by countries. the Protocol, were nevertheless applying its For example the 1979 survey asked 35 coun- provisions (Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Neth- tries which out of our 38 standards for fresh erlands, Norway, Switzerland and Yugosla- fruits and vegetables had been: via). Two countries did not intend to enforce • accepted, i.e. reflected in the national any regulations applying the Protocol’s provi- legislation or regulations of the European sions, but would encourage their voluntary Economic Community; acceptance by traders (Sweden, United King- dom). Ireland did not accept the Protocol. • accepted in principle, i.e. the government had approved the provisions of the stand- The Federal Republic of Germany wanted to ard but had not adjusted the correspond- carefully examine the differences between ing provisions of the national standard; our recommendations and the nationally • accepted with reservations; adopted trade classes. No problems were expected for produce corresponding to “Extra” • substituted by a national standard slightly and “Class I” provisions of the Protocol; for different from ours. produce of lower quality the Federal Republic would require special markings in addition to Most countries replied that they had accepted those prescribed in the Protocol. our standards.

For many years the Protocol constituted the 8. UNECE standards become European Eco- basis for the activities of the Working Party. It nomic Community standards was updated to take into account the changing trade practices, inspection procedures In 1962, the secretariat of the European Eco- and national legislation. The latest revision nomic Community (EEC) informed us that, (1985) consists of three major parts: in accordance with the Council of Ministers decision, common standards of quality would 1. General provisions to be applied in Eu be applied by the EEC, from 1 July 1962, to rope for the commercial standardization certain types of fruit and vegetables traded and quality control of fresh fruit and veg- between member countries or imported from etables and dry or dried fruit dispatched non-members. in international traffic This regulation was firstly applied to the 2. Responsibilities of the Working Party products for which our standards had already been adopted. For other products included in 3. Control certificate. the Council decision, the EEC asked our Work- ing Party to develop standards before July Over the past 25 years, the first part has 1962. Adopted with slight changes by the EEC, evolved into two separate standard layouts 21 of our standards had become obligatory for for fresh fruit and vegetables and dry and intra-community trade since 30 July 19626. dried produce, the latest revisions of which were adopted in 20085. The second part has 6 Apples and pears, tomatoes, cauliflowers, onions, let- 5 The standard layouts are available on: www.unece. tuces and endives, apricots, peaches, plums, artichokes, org/trade/agr/standard/fresh/FFV-Standards.htm and cherries, strawberries, witloof chicory, spinach, table www.unece.org/trade/agr/standard/dry/DDP-Stand- grapes, shelling peas, beans, carrots, lemons, oranges, ards.htm mandarins and clementines.

The European Commission and EU countries The feedback from the OECD Scheme on have always played the key role in drawing the provisions in the standard layout and in up our standards. By 2008, 36 UNECE stand- individual standards has been regular and ards had been adopted, with slight changes, substantive. For example, in October 1971 the in the EC regulations. The new EC Regulation Working Party adopted the OECD Scheme No. 1580/2007 has reduced that number to recommendation concerning general provi- 10, but at the same time providing traders sions for the labeling (marking) and identifi- with the option of grading produce in accord- cation of fresh fruits and vegetables. Most of ance with our standards. Demand for new the particulars suggested in the label, repro- and revised UNECE standards is expected to duced below, are part of the marking provi- increase. sions of the 2008 UNECE Standard Layout.

The minimum requirements, as well as broad Number and address of packer and/or definitions of classes, quality tolerances and dispatcher: (or code mark) uniformity, stipulated in Annex I (Quality conditions to be satisfied by each product for which there is no Community marketing Nature of produce (where necessary): standard as regards sales packages of fresh Variety (or commercial type): fruit and vegetables) of the Regulation, are practically identical to the corresponding Country of origin: Class: provisions in the UNECE standard layout. The Trade name certificate of conformity in Annex III of the (where appropriate): Regulation is the same as that recommended by the UNECE Working Party. Size: Weight (or number of units): Regarding exports to third countries, paragraph (13) of the introductory part of the The OECD Scheme was also involved in draw- Regulation says: “Member States should ing up standards until 1996. In the beginning ensure that exports of fresh fruit and vegeta- of the 1982s, the Scheme worked on standards bles to third countries conform to the market- for Chinese cabbage, kiwifruit, custard apples ing standards and should certify conformity, and mangoes. It is interesting to note that the in accordance with the Geneva Protocol on first draft of the standard for mangoes was standardization of fresh fruit and vegetables developed by Mali in cooperation with the and dry and dried fruit concluded within the International Trade Centre (UNCTAD/GATT) United nations Economic Commission for in Geneva. Europe and the OECD scheme for the application of international standards for fruit and At the December 1990 session of the Working vegetables.” Party, the OECD Scheme reported on its work to establish objective methods of determin- 9. UNECE and the OECD Scheme ing minimum ripeness (iodine test for apples and Brix values for certain other fruits). The In 1962 the OECD Scheme started its work on Brix values are now an important indication interpreting our standards to improve their of minimum commercial quality in many of practical application. This work has been car- our standards. These minimum values guar- ried out in close cooperation with the Work- antee edibility, not necessarily good taste. ing Party and its subsidiary bodies. The important role of the OECD Scheme is The OECD Scheme adopts our standards as fully recognized in the EC Regulation No. OECD standards and develops explanatory 1580/2007. The opening remark to Annex VI material to interpret them. It draws up guide- on methods of inspection points out that the lines on conformity inspection, organizes presented methods are based on the provi- meetings for national inspectors to discuss sions of the guide for the implementation of implementation of the guidelines and the quality control of fresh fruit and vegetables standards and carries out capacity-building adopted by the UNECE Working Party and activities and peer reviews of inspection sys- developed by the OECD Scheme. tems.

The same annex further implies, under “(e) It is expected to be taken in the fourth quarter Control of produce”, that the inspection of of 2009. uniformity, minimum requirements, quality classes and size shall be carried out on the It should be acknowledged that for years the basis of the bulk sample, or on the basis of Working Party has enjoyed constructive and the composite sample, taking into account efficient cooperation of the OECD Scheme the explanatory brochures published by in promoting UNECE standards and in their the OECD Scheme, and that the criteria on practical application. the degree of development and/or ripeness can be checked using the instruments and 10. UNECE and Codex Alimentarius methods laid down to this end in the relevant Commission marketing standards or in accordance with the accepted practice, that is with the OECD How to avoid duplication of work on com- Guidance on Objective Tests to Determine mercial agricultural quality standards by Quality of Fruit and Vegetables and Dry and UNECE and Codex is and has always been a Dried Produce7. highly controversial issue.

In 2005, UNECE launched an external evalua- On several occasions the Working Party tion of its work. As a result of extensive con- expressed serious concern that the exist- sultations to review activities and set new pri- ence of two international standards for the orities, our member States decided that the same product, not fully harmonized, would work in agricultural quality standards should confuse and obstruct rather than facilitate be strengthened and that “Consultations international trade. Nevertheless, the Work- should be initiated with the OECD in order to ing Party’s view that our standards were truly concentrate the activities of the two organi- international in scope rather than regional zations within the ECE.” Many of the same and that they were drawn up to facilitate in- experts work in parallel in both bodies on the ternational trade is not shared by those Codex standard and explanatory material for the member countries which are not members of same product. Concentrating the activities in UNECE. standard-setting and developing explanatory material in UNECE would increase efficiency Already back in 1983, in attempting to solve of this work. the problem of duplication, the Working Party had proposed to the Committee on The proposed transfer of activities from the Agricultural Problems that it adopt the fol- OECD would provide an important opportu- lowing text on coordinating its programme nity to expand the participation of countries of work with that of Codex. in the development of both the standards and explanatory material. “A. Cooperation This broader participation would give the (i) The Working Party agrees to inform standards higher international recognition the Codex Alimentarius Commission regu- and prominence. larly of its programme of work, including the To prepare the transfer, the Working Party intention to undertake any new work relat- adopted in 2007 its new Terms of Reference ing to the standardization of foodstuffs other and Working Procedures, by which it opened than fresh fruit and vegetables. its activities to all member countries of the (ii) Similarly, the Codex Alimentarius United Nations, and extended its mandate to Commission will regularly inform the Work- cover the development of explanatory mate- ing Party of matters of interest to the Work- rial. It has also initiated work on the first UN- ing Party arising from the work (actual or ECE explanatory brochure for sweet peppers planned) of the Commission. and has started discussion on restructuring its activities. (iii) The secretariat of the Codex Alimen- tarius Commission shall regularly inform The final decision on the transfer belongs to its member countries of the work of UNECE, the member countries of the OECD Scheme. letting them know that they are invited to 7 Downloadable from: www.oecd.org/agr/fv

© BLE, IAT - 2009 UNECE - Commercial Agricultural Quality Standards 25 participate in meetings of the Working Party role of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. and of its subsidiary bodies. UNECE standards shall not normally contain provisions on food additives, contaminants, (iv) In certain cases the Codex Alimentar- pesticides or on food hygiene. ius Commission and the ECE may consider establishing joint ECE/Codex for the elaboration (v) In the area of marking (labelling), of standards for products of common interest. the UNECE standards shall contain only such labelling provisions as would be appropriate B. Harmonization of standards for the commercial standardization of the produce or for the information of traders and (i) Where the Working Party proposes to quality control services. develop a standard for which a Codex standard or draft standard already exists, the mini- The Codex International General Standard for mum requirements and tolerances applying the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods should be to Class II produce of the UNECE standard given due recognition - perhaps in the intro- should in principle be the same as those con- ductory note by the secretariat to each of the tained in the world-wide Codex standard. publications containing UNECE standards.

Nevertheless, in cases where the perishability (vi) In the area of methods of analysis and of the produce is such that a deterioration of sampling, the role of the Codex Alimentarius quality might be expected between the point Commission in defining the purpose of inter- of dispatch and arrival at the point of destina- national standard methods and in establish- tion, the UNECE standard may recommend ing criteria for their selection is recognized more stringent minimum requirements and by the Working Party. Methods in Codex and tolerances to be applied at the point of dis- UNECE standards should ideally be the same.” patch in order to take account of this perishability. In response to the decision of the Codex Ali- mentarius Commission to establish a new Co- The Working Party continues to establish dex Committee for the standardization of the commercial quality standards for classes and standardization of fresh fruit and vegetables above the minimum requirements. grown exclusively in tropical zones, UNECE at its 1988 session adopted a resolution request- (ii) Where the Codex Alimentarius Com- ing that: mission proposes to develop a standard for a commodity for which a UNECE standard, “(a) the list of fresh fruit and vegetables recommendation or draft at an earlier stage which will be standardized by the new Codex exists, the first draft of the Codex standard Committee be established in agreement with should include all of the provisions of the the other standardizing intergovernmental UNECE text except those which are clearly re- organizations; lated to the commercial quality requirements for the higher classes of produce. (b) intergovernmental organizations involved in standardization work in close rela- (iii) Where neither a Codex standard nor tion, so as to maintain a high methodological a Codex draft standard exists for products homogeneity in the elaboration of standards; which are traded worldwide as well as within Europe, the Codex Alimentarius Commis- (c) the standards for fruit and vegetables sion shall give due regard to requests of the considered as “exclusively” tropical be estab- Working Party for work to commence on the lished without mention, neither in the defini- elaboration of a Codex standard, in antici- tion nor in any other chapter of the standard, pation of work by the Working Party on the of this fact.” elaboration of the commercial quality classification in accordance with the principles set Another serious attempt to agree on the coor- out above. dination of work between the two organizations was undertaken at the November 1993 (iv) In the area of food safety the Working session of the Working Party. The Director of party recognizes the competence and leading the then Joint FAO/ECE Agricultural and Tim-

© BLE, IAT - 2009 UNECE - Commercial Agricultural Quality Standards 26 ber Division made a proposal on joint UNECE/ the methods of work of both organizations to Codex activities which would offer the follow- ensure closer cooperation and coordination ing: of work.

(a) all countries could participate with equal right;

(b) the global nature of the standards would be granted;

(d) the distinction between tropical and other fruit would disappear.

This approach could take the form of a joint Codex/UNECE body by merging the Codex Committee on Tropical Fresh Fruits and Vegetables with the UNECE Group of Experts on Standardization of Fresh Fruit and Vegeta- bles. Meetings and chairmanship of the joint body would alternate between Mexico City and Geneva. The Mexico and UNECE secretariats would service the meeting on an alternate basis as well.

This proposal was rejected with several delegations pointing out the problems that could arise:

(a) completely different methods of working between the Codex and the UNECE with different procedural manuals would slow down the work;

(b) different meeting locations, chair- men, and secretariat could affect the continu- ity of the work;

(d) impact on other organizations like OECD and the European Community whose work is based on UNECE standards;

(e) procedural matters would need to be discussed and agreed which would take up valuable time and slow down the work.

Between that time and today, apart from the Codex using the UNECE standards as a starting point for developing their own, no fundamental changes have taken place in

Marketing Standard for Pears Reinhild Fänger

Definition of produce of the pears. Therefore, the acceptable limit would be the odd insect, mite or other pest The marketing standard covers pears of in the package or sample; any fruit with pest varieties grown from Pyrus communis L. The infestation would lead to the rejection of the varieties Williams Bon Chretien, Red Bartlett, product. The edibility of worm eaten pears is Abate Fetel, Alexander Lucas, Conference and seriously affected and those pears are to be Taylors Gold are taken as examples to demon- excluded from marketing. Only in the toler- strate the different characteristics of the fruits ance of Class II, 2 % of worm eaten fruit are typical of the variety: pear shaped, round, allowed. elongated, pear shaped with irregular dented contours, smooth skin, more or less russeted, Minimum requirement „practically free yellow, yellowishgreen or red skinned. from damage caused by pests“ The marketing standard does not cover Nashi Pest damage can detract from the general pears and other Asian pears such as fragrant appearance and affect the keeping quality pears. and edibility of the fruits. Those damages comprise bites caused by wasps. Fruits with Minimum requirement „intact“ damage caused by pests affecting the flesh are excluded from marketing. Only in the The fruit must not have any damage or injury tolerance of Class II, 2 % of worm eaten fruit spoiling the integrity of the product. Pears as are allowed. other fruits are easily damaged due to poor care. In pears, other than in apples, the pe- Class „Extra“ duncle may not be removed without damaging the adjacent flesh. Fruits in this class must not only be perfect in appearance but must have the flavour typical Minimum requirement „sound“ of the variety. Very slight superficial defects are allowed. Moreover, the russeting typi- The fruit must be free from disease or serious cal of the variety is allowed as shown for the deterioration which appreciably affects their variety ‘Conference’. The difference between appearance, edibility or keeping quality. In the Classes “Extra”, I and II is related to the particular, fruits affected by rotting, severe grading for uniform appearance and not to sunburn affecting the flesh, browning of the the degree of russeting. flesh, skin browning due to low temperature (scald), rolling damage or physiological de- Class I fects, grittiness spread throughout the flesh, severe bruises being visible on the ripe fruit Pears in this class are of good quality and only, severe damage due to hail, rough and provide the majority of fruits on the market. cracked russeting and scab exceeding 1 cm² Slight defects in shape are allowed as shown are excluded. for the variety ‘Kaiser Alexander’ (synonym ‘Bosc’) in comparison to the typical shape. In Minimum requirement „clean“ addition to that, slight skin defects are allowed provided they do not exceed 2 cm in The fruits must be practically free of visible total length or 1 cm² in total area. The skin de- soil, dust, residues or other foreign matter. fects may be caused by slight damage due to Very common is the dirtiness due to sooty hail, rubbing or scab which must not exceed mould. 0.25 cm². A slight bruise not exceeding 1 cm² is allowed provided it is not discoloured. Minimum requirement „practically free from pests“ Class II

The presence of pests can detract from the Pears in this class are of reasonable quality, commercial presentation and acceptance and are suitable for human consumption.

Defects in shape are allowed as shown for the corresponding to the fact that especially in varieties ‘Kaiser Alexander’ (synonym ‘Bosc’) ripe fruit bruises are always discoloured. At and ‘Conference’ in comparison to the typical the same time the area allowed for bruises in shape. In varieties such as ‘Conference’ the Class II has been increased from 1 cm2 to shape defects may be caused by partheno- 2 cm2. carpy. In addition to that, skin defects are allowed The UNECE standard for pears provides provided they do not exceed 4 cm in total for mixtures of varieties in the provisions length or 2.5 cm² in total area. The skin concerning presentation. Future will show, defects may be caused by damage due to whether this is an appropriate presentation hail, rubbing, slight rough russeting or scab for this product. which must not exceed 1 cm². A slight bruise not exceeding 1 cm² is allowed and it may be OECD explanatory brochure on pears discoloured. In this class pears showing grittiness are al- The OECD working group dedicated to the lowed, but a fruit may not include more than explanatory brochure related to the UNECE 2 to 3 pits, i.e. despite the grittiness the flesh standard for pears agrees on the fact that must be free from major defects. pears may be – typical of the variety – more or less russeted. Normally this russeting is Presentation smooth. But in some growing regions and depending on the season, this russeting may The pears of Class „Extra“ must be presented be rough and cracked. in one layer with the fruit separated from each other. In Classes I and II multiple layers The UNECE standard– as does the EC market- or fruit packed in bulk in the package areal- ing standard – allows a „slight rough rus- lowed. seting“ in Class II. The OECD working group proposes that a smaller area of „slight rough Labelling russeting“ should be allowed in Class I too. The participants of the International Meeting The package must be labelled with name and voted during their sample assessment the de- address of the packer and/or dispatcher, class, gree that should be allowed in Classes I and II. country of origin, variety, size or in case of presentation in layers, the number of fruit. At the retail stage, these indications must be given on pre-packages too.

UNECE standard for pears

Finally, the UNECE standard as amended in 2008 shall be presented. The EC marketing standard in force has not yet been harmonized.

The minimum requirement „practically free from damage caused by pests“ has been specified to „free from damages caused by pests affecting the flesh“. With this amendment, a number of defects caused by pests may be classified as skin defects. On the other hand, for defects affecting the flesh a tolerance can not be granted as the edibility is affected.

Regarding bruises allowed in Classes I and II the reference to discolouration has been deleted (Class I „not discoloured“ and Class II „may be discoloured“). This is an amendment

Diversity of Pear Varieties Andreas Zschammer

For today‘s event, I would have preferred to cultivated today and continue to realise bring a wide range of pear varieties with me. a very high market value. Emigrants took Considering the stock of the Bundessorte- pear reproductive material to Australia and namt (BSA, Federal Plant Variety Office‘s) America, where, too, intense breeding activi- station of variety testing in Wurzen, this is ties developed. currently not possible. In March, the quality of quite a few valuable Variety development from beginning to pear varieties is already progressed too far. present In the following I will give an account of my work as testing technician for the register Taking a look at a list of old pear varieties, control of pears at the BSA. pear lovers may encounter among these very well-known ones. Development of the cultivated pear Hardenponts Let us start with the historical development. 1759 Butterbirne Belgium Our cultivated pear, Pyrus communis, origi- 1760 Pastorenbirne France nates in several wild pear species. A major part in this is played by Pyrus pyraster, 1770 Williams Christ England our wild pear, which was Tree of the Year in 1778 Gute Luise France 1998 in Germany. Pyrus nivalis is the source species of numerous 1811 Tongern Belgium perry pear varieties, which are mostly culti- 1860 Clapps Liebling USA vated in Austria. Pyrus pyrifolia is the source species of the 1866 Abbé Fétel France nashi pear. Especially in Italy and Austria, 1870 Alexander Lucas France Pyrus betulifolia made itself a name as root- stock with medium-strong growth. 1879 Herzogin Elsa Germany Pyrus salacifolia is a wild pear species, which 1894 Conference England can be found as ornamental tree in parks or home gardens. Altogether, there are between 1896 Packhams Triumph Australia 20 and 30 wild pear species.

Similar to the apple, the cultivated pear origi- You can see here the variety of ‚Williams nates in the Middle East. In the course of mass Christ‘ of 1770, which is still present on the migrations, it came via the Balkans to Greece market, and very well-known. and Italy. ‚Gute Luise‘ is very well-known, too, and can It was through Roman campaigns that the time and again be found on the market. pear reached Middle Europe, and from there ‚Clapps Liebling‘ is a well-known early variety England. First records date from Ancient from the US. Greece as early as 1,000 before Christ, where ‚Abbé Fétel‘ is an old variety which meets selections and reproduction methods have with great customer acceptance in today‘s already been used. supermarkets, and can also be well marketed. In the Middle Ages, pears were chiefly It was bred in France as early as 1866. ‚Alexan- cultivated in monastery gardens. Chance der Lucas‘ is a widespread and old variety. seedlings were selected, and first controlled ‚Packhams Triumph‘ was bred in Australia breedings were performed. The monks were in 1896 and can still be found on the market gourmets, thus selected very melting and de- today. licious pears. In the eighteenth century, the pears‘ golden age, mainly French and Belgian 1936 Grand Champion USA growers were active. 1950 General Leclerc France Selections took place, but also breedings. 1951 Santa Maria Italy From this time, some pear varieties are still

light‘ is very interesting because of its fire- 1960 Fertilia France blight resistance and good taste. 1965 Condo Netherlands ‚Valérac‘ is a pear that originates in Swit- 1981 Harrow Delight Canada zerland. This variety offers good qualities of cultivation. 1986 Champirac Switzerland ‚Harrow Sweet‘ is a well-known fireblight- 1986 Valérac Switzerland resistant variety. There are many interesting pear varieties. 1992 Lombacad USA The new ones, however, often have difficul- 1993 Concorde* England ties to reach or maintain a position on the market. Starting from ‚Concorde‘, only varie- 1995 David* Germany ties with variety rights are listed, either with 1996 Harrow Sweet* Canada national or EU rights.

1996 Uta* Germany When breeding new varieties, the following 1997 Verdi* Netherlands targets are of major importance 1998 Rosemarie* South Africa • volume and stability of yields 1998 Hortensia* Germany • (uniform) fruit size 2000 Angelys* France • appealing and uniform fruit shape 2000 Delsanne* France colour• 2002 Dolacomi* Netherlands taste• 2002 Anna* Norway • firmness of flesh (shelf life in retail trade) 2002 AC Harrow Delicious* Canada • skin quality 2003 AC Harrow Gold* Canada • resistance to pressure • good shelf life 2003 Taylors Gold* New Zealand • resistance to plant diseases 2006 Flamingo* South Africa

2006 Dicolor* Czech Incidentally, taste is very important. A pear Republic fruit‘s taste and consistency are key factors for 2007 Schöne Helene* Germany its marketing. The pear is a fruit that needs to be enjoyed. 2007 Graf Dietrich* Germany Unlike apples, it shouldn‘t be eaten when 2007 Thimo* Germany under stress. A pear should be treated like something pre- Czech 2008 Bohemica* Republic cious. This starts by letting the fruit ripen to a cer- Czech tain point so that the pear is able to unfold 2008 Radana* Republic its splendid and typical flavour, and ends by 2009 Broncet* Germany enjoying the pear with its skin peeled off. 2009 Jaco* Germany By the way, pear lovers can be divided into *) varieties with variety rights two groups: one that indulges in melting fruits and another that prefers crisp and juicy The more recent varieties include ‚Santa fruits. Whether that is the young generation, Maria‘ from Italy. This early variety is fre- may be left open. quently on offer in supermarkets, and is very In any case, the older generation‘s choice popular due to its smooth skin and pleasant is butter pears and all varieties with similar appearance. melting qualities. The variety of ‚Condo‘ from the Netherlands is a variety which possesses similar storage Regarding cultivation, it is essential for pear characteristics as ‚Conference‘. ‚Harrow De- varieties to be resistant to fungi and bacteria,

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Diversity of Pear Varieties 31 e.g. fireblight. Unfortunately, up to now no 65 features are registered under the techni- variety combines all the qualities mentioned cal protocol of the Community Plant Variety above. Office.

Tasks of the Bundessortenamt This guideline is the basis for our work. As an (Federal Plant Variety Office) example, fruit shapes are here shown.

The Federal Plant Variety Office serves as In this table you can see different fruit shapes, contact point for breeders that intend to have the position of the maximum diameter and their intellectual property protected. The the fruit index, which changes according to central office is located in Hannover and the length and diameter. 13 stations for variety testing spread through- On the transparency, the position of the out Germany. maximum diameter and the fruit shape, go- The testing station in Wurzen near Leipzig ing from concave to convex, can be seen. On controls pomefruit and small fruit. The test- the left we see concave fruits like ‚Williams ing station in Marquardt near Potsdam con- Christ‘, on the right convex ones similar to ‚Al- trols stone fruit, wild fruit, ornamental wood, exander Lucas‘. herbaceous plants and cultivated blueberries. The recording of features is performed at the All other testing stations concentrate on agri- plant, and the marks are put down in a plant cultural cultivated varieties. appraisal book. The results are recorded in the central database, and offset. The BSA‘s tasks include the variety rights of the relevant plant variety, the approval of At the end of the control period, the results varieties in the field of agricultural cultivated are used to take a decision or draw up the varieties, the check of protected and ap- final report, which will state whether a vari- proved varieties, publications in the official ety is new and distinguishable and meets all gazette, involvement in legislative acts and requirements relevant for protection. assistance to the Federal Ministry of Food, The variety rights granted testify to the Agriculture and Consumer Protection breeder‘s intellectual property. (BMELV). Currently, 5 varieties in Germany, 27 in the The BSA published a „Descriptive List of EU, have variety rights, and 14 varieties are Pomefruit Varieties“ with the description of going through a variety rights procedure. In 120 apple varieties and 43 of pear varieties. the control body in Wurzen we have 244 pear This list is to provide experts, but also home varieties, which include 17 Asian pear varie- gardeners, with information relating to varieties and 30 breeding clones. ties. Description of varieties How is the check of varieties now carried out? On the following transparencies, I would like to dwell on some other pear varieties. First, the breeder submits a variety rights application and fills in a technical questionnaire ‚Williams Christ‘ is interesting not only for with indications regarding the variety, e.g. the fresh products market, but also plays a cross-breeding partners. The application and major role in processing. the questionnaire as well as plant material ‚Conference‘ can be cultivated under a wide have to be sent in at a determined date. range of conditions. The fruits have more It will be decided whether cultivation will or less russeting. However, according to the take place outdoors or in the greenhouse. development of weather conditions this rus- The check concerns at least 2 periods of veg- seting can be rough and cracked. This is due etation. As for pears, 5 trees are usually sent to sudden cold spells (frost) after blossom. In in. case of poor pollination, fruits are without ovules (parthenocarpic), what, as far as ap- It is divided into 2 years of root-taking and pearance is concerned, can be told from the 2 years of control. During the control period, long and very slender fruit shape. For these

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Diversity of Pear Varieties 32 fruits, price may be distinctly lower. characteristics and has a good taste. By the way, the typical russeting of the variety of ‚Conference‘ can be found at the calyce, ‚Uta‘ is a new variety with rights, which has that of ‚Abbé Fétel‘ at the stem. been bred out of ‚Boscs Flaschenbirne‘ and ‚Madame Verte‘. This variety has full russet- ‚Santa Maria‘ is interesting due to its smooth ing that, at the stage of ripeness, shows a gold skin. bronze colour, which has arguably lead to its brand name of Gold Sensation® . It is an ‚Packhams Triumph‘ is an old Australian va- aromatic variety well suitable for storage and, riety, which can be found as imported fruit in due to its russeting, needs the same accept- supermarkets. Its bumpy surface makes it less ance as ‚Boscs Flaschenbirne‘. In Austria, ‚Uta‘ attractive. It is a descendant of Williams and is increasingly used for organic fruit cultiva- offers a good taste. tion.

‚Anjou‘ is an old French variety. In the US, the ‚Lombacad‘, a pear variety of red skin and variety of ‚Red Anjou‘ is important for cultiva- with the brand name of Cascade® , is a US tion. ‚Red Anjou‘ is a good match for the wide cross-breed of red ‚Rote Williams Christ‘ and range of pear varieties with red skin. ‚Vereinsdechant‘.

‚Alexander Lucas‘ can be cultivated under a The trend in pear breeding goes towards broad range of conditions. In Saxony, its culti- colour. Quite an appealing new breed is the vation is now becoming more prevalent. protected variety of ‚Dicolor‘ from the Czech Republic, which shows a brilliant red colour. ‚Boscs Flaschenbirne‘ is an old variety with full russeting, which meets with the accept- ‚Thimo‘, a colourful new variety from Germa- ance of customers who are familiar with ny, is protected since 2007. The trees in Wur- varieties with russeting, and who know ‚Boscs zen are too young to derive a variety value. Flaschenbirne‘ under the names of ‚Calebasse Boscs‘ or ‚Kaiser Alexander‘. Lastly, there is the protected variety of ‚Fla- mingo‘ from South Africa, which is made This is not so much the case in Saxony, where quite attractive by its colours, and is also the smooth skinned variety ‚Alexander Lucas‘ included in the range of our inspection body. is more popular. Trademarks and registered tradenames A good early pear variety is ‚Clapps Liebling‘, which is suitable for direct marketing, though As for the pear variety of ‚Lombacad‘ it is the shelf life is very limited as with all early varie- variety‘s name that is protected in terms of ties. variety rights, i.e. this name and protection relates to the variety‘s planting stock. It is ‚Gute Luise‘ is well known for its typical good only the breeder or licensed tree nurseries flavour, but it tends to produce small fruits, that hold reproductive rights of the planting thus being of less importance for markets. stock.

‚Vereinsdechant‘ is, as far as taste is con- Reproductive material like seeds or plants of a cerned, a top-class pear with very melting protected variety has always to be labelled by flesh. Frequently, this variety was used as the registered variety denomination (article cross-parent for different new varieties. 14 of Plant Varieties Act). However, this does not apply to the harvested Recently, a red mutant of ‚Vereinsdechant‘ material of the protected variety. Fruit trade has been obtained, which is still being tested. preferably uses tradenames, the additional labelling of the variety is mandatory based on ‚Concorde‘ is a new English breed with vari- the marketing standard. ety rights in Germany since 1993. It is a cross- breed of ‚Vereinsdechant‘ and ‚Conference‘. In the case of ‚Lombacad‘, the tradename of In Saxony, this variety is under cultivation. Cascade® is linked to the name of the variety. Unlike ‚Conference‘, ‚Concorde‘ has not much If he registers a new variety for variety rights, russeting, it possesses similarly good storage

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Diversity of Pear Varieties 33 the breeder can at the same time apply for Trademark/ Name of variety a tradename at the German Patent Office in Brand name – ® Munich or the International Patent Office in Alicante, Spain. This has advantages and Isolda Lady Isolda disadvantages. Lombacad Cascade

As for the variety certificate, the breeder has Delbias Super Comic to comply with the requirements of the Plant Delfrap Delbard Premiere Varieties Act. Together with the registration of a new plant variety for national or Com- Deldap Delbard Precoce munity variety rights, the applicant has to Delete Delbardelice submit a registered variety denomination under Section 1 and 7 of the Plant Varieties Rafzas Benita Act. This has to be done during the time when Verdi Sweet Blush the competent authority examines whether the conditions for granting the rights are fulfilled. Variety rights are indispensable to being able to protect the breeding result against third parties. If variety rights cannot be applied for or claimed any longer as the concerning variety is not new any more, a trade name or brand (registered tradename) can be used to draw a distinction with regard to competi- tors. But also with protected varieties many breeders take the opportunity to have, besides the protection of the variety itself, a trade name (brand) protected.

With fruits of woody plants, variety rights expire after thirty years. From this time on the variety concerned is no longer protected and freely disposable. Then, you have the possibility to continue, by means of a brand name, to exercise a right of prohibition.

In the protection of brands it is also allowed to have several varieties subsumed under one brand name. Trade mark law is a very complicated field and only the breeder of a variety can tell which variety is designated by a certain brand name. Unfortunately there is no official list of brands providing detailed information about the relation between variety/varieties and brand.

Some aspects of quality production of pear in France Sandrine Codarin

Ctifl activities cover all aspects of production At level of retailer, a possibility to segment the and distribution of fruit and vegetables, from product by quality is maturing. The maturing varietal evaluation and crop management, to aim to propose fruits of optimal firmness and logistics and merchandising in retail outlets. colour, at the top of their gustatory quality to consumers. Activities coordinated by technical pear pro- gram at Ctifl deal with plant material evaluation and better knowledge of varieties, tree management at orchard, fruit tree certification, integrated pest management, tools for quality at harvest, storage, marketing levels.

Total pear production in France is nearly 160000 tons in 2008, a decrease of 20 % compared to 2007, produced on approximately 7400 ha. France is now the 5 th European producing country. The most widely planted pear are summer pear – Williams and Guyot – autumn pear – Conference and Comice. Winter pear are less important.

Product quality is not easy to define and concerned all product life since orchard to retailer.

Planting certified virus free material is one of the major steps to improve quality at orchard. Tree fruit certification guarantees trueness- to-variety and the respect of pomological characteristics of the variety and absence of listed degenerative diseases.

In orchard, growers have to pay attention to roostock used, planting distances, fruit load management, to ensure a production of quality.

The assessment of the stage of maturity and harvest at an optimal stage of maturity is a key factor to obtain a fruit of quality. Tools for evaluation of maturity were performed using knowledge on physiological development of fruits.

Fruit quality must be preserved for several months. Adapted storage conditions to cultivars characteristics preserve fruit quality. Impacts for example must be avoided as much as possible during grading. The use of an electronic apple may be useful to identify the risk areas of the chain.

Marketing standard for pears and quality production in Chile Edmundo Araya

Introduction And General Aspects quality standards as: U.S. #1, UN-ECE quality standards for fruits, OECD Quality Brochures Chile is one of leader country on the template and others from some Far East countries, climate fresh fruit exportations. Chile exports developed its own standard putting all the more than seventy five species to one hun- parameters considered on the mentioned dred countries directly. Several statistics are ones and the most exigent value or concept. shown in the Annex N°1. In some cases, the parameters involved on the fruit condition (Decay, Bruise, etc) we was According to the FAO statistics published in more stricter than the values published due 2005, Chile is the major fresh fruit exporter to the long distance from Chile to the main from the Southern Hemisphere with practi- markets. cally the 50% of the fruit exportations of those countries, taken in consideration only the The Chilean industry quality standard, is most important species.(See Annex). If we voluntary for growers and exporter compa- consider other species like: Berries, Avoca- nies, but in practice every company follow does, Cherries, probably the figure will be this standard because is a very good tool to around the 60% to 65%. (Author’s estimation). assure a good business relationship with their partners abroad. It was written with the same About Pears production and exportations, the structure and characteristics of the men- European Union is the main continent of the tioned standards, but includes: pictures of the destination of this specie from Chile, repre- main different levels of defects (posters), color senting the 52% of all Chilean pears exported charts, sampling tables, decision diagrams to the world. See the main statistics in the for inspections, etc. Annex. It was published in 1998 for Table grapes, Ap- Due to the different mandatory regulations ples and Pears, Kiwis and Stone fruits (Peach- by each importer country (phitosanitary, es, Nectarines and Plumbs) . Later in 2000 pesticides residues, quality and others), plus was published the standard for Citric fruits the requirements of the importers (retailers (Oranges, Lemons, Clementine and others) mainly), the Chilean fresh fruit industry have and Avocadoes. In 2002 was published the been forced to adopt some private standards standard for Berries (Raspberries, Blackber- for its growers and exporters as a way to be ries, Blueberries). possible they can send their product to any country. Those private and voluntary stand- The current Pears quality standard covers ards have been developed at the most profes- completely the European Union quality sional level and recognized as a good harmo- standard as well the US#1. nized model. All the Chilean quality standard are revised Chilean Quality Standards For Fresh Fruis and updated annually.

The Chilean Fresh Fruit Industry, leaded by Today the official agency for the Chilean the Chilean Exporters Association (ASOEX), Standard (Instituto Nacional de Normaliza- on year 1998 contracted the Fruit [industry] ción) adopted the ASOEX standard as a base. Developing Foundation (FDF) of Chile (www. During the process of discussions and pro- fdf.cl) to carry out a Quality Standard for the cedures some minor little changes was done main fruits that Chile produce and export, and practically fully adopted. taking in consideration that any single grower could export their products to any country A similar situation occurred on other sub- in the world. jects like: Good Agricultural Practices, Good Manufacture Practices, Labor practices, Social FDF, working with the Technical Commit- Responsibility, etc. had been developed by tee of ASOEX and based on the main world the Chilean industry. The most relevant case

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Marketing standard for pears and quality production in Chile 36 is ChileGAP because today is fully bench- Plantation and culture handling marked with GLOBAL G.A.P. (Ex EUREPGAP) and is in progress the benchmarking process Plantations are established according the cli- with ChinaGAP. mate and soil conditions for the variety. IPM Management, Good water quality (irrigation), Chilean Pear Production And Exports Fertilization according Lab analysis, GAP directions, Technical Advisory and Information Chile have around 6.738 hectares of pears (Climate parameters, Pesticide Agenda, GAP plantation. The main varieties are: Packham’s directions, etc) are the main key aspects dur- Triuph, Abate Fetel and Beurre Bosc. In the ing the developing of the culture and harvest. last five years have been introduced the varieties: Forelle, Flamingo and Carmen. At harvest time, picking is done by hand and workers are trained for handling the fruits In general pears have a very good crop by carefully. Clean plastic bins are used and the hectare (over 50 tones / ha) and a good first transportation to the Packing facility is done quality rate average (75% to 80%). protecting the bins to avoid bruising.

The following tables show the main figures: Post harvest and packaging Varieties ha At the packing shed; lots are defined and Packham‘s Triumph 2,785 labeled, all the bins are washed (Water + Abate Fetel 680 clorine , 100 ppm) at 0,5-1,0 °C during 15 to 30 Beurre Bosc 561 minutes (Hydrocooling process). Summer Bartlett 415 Coscia 335 Lots (Bins) are moved to cold rooms (0 °C – Beurre d‘Anjou 173 95% RH), waiting for packaging or pre-selec- Red Bartlett 119 tion for Controlled Atmosphere long storage Red d‘Anjou 105 (up to 4-5 months) Red Sensation 104 Winter Nelis 99 At the packing line fruit is washed, waxed (if it Forelle 89 is a request of the client) treated with a fun- Sonstige 1,273 gicide according with the regulation of the country of destination, grading and calibrat- Total 6,738 ed electronically (by weight).

Main pear varieties exported to Europe Fruits are packed in carton boxes by caliber 2007-2008 and class, normally using trays and plastic (52 % of all pear exports) bags or covered with a special paper. All Packham‘s Triumph 29,694 t packaging materials are approved and certifi- cated for food. Each box is labeled according Abate Fetel 16,747 t the phitosanitary and quality regulations Coscia 4,302 t (national and country of destination). Special Red Bartlett 2,969 t packaging materials or cartons also occurred. Beurre Bosc 2,490 t The QC personnel take samples (boxes) from Forelle 1,569 t different pallets during the process to check all the parameters according the Standard of Other 7,042 t the country of destination of the lot. If detect Total 64,813 t a systematic problem could stop the process. Some chemical analysis could be carry out in The Quality Production System: From The a external Lab. Field To The Importer (General Summary) Boxes are palletized by class, caliber (size) and commercial category. Each pallet is coded The main aspects of the production and ex- in a unique way (bar codes normally) and port system of Pears in Chile will be described. labeled by its four sides with the common

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Marketing standard for pears and quality production in Chile 37 information of its boxes and the description Chile has been open, flexible and proactive of each box is registered in a form (Packing in regards to consumer and retailers require- List). The Packing List is mandatory for the ments; this has been recognized by the cus- phitosanitary inspection and certification. tomers from around the world

Transport to the shipping port We are facing many changes, stemming mainly form retailers, that are becoming a Pallets are loading in refrigerated trucks, to barrier to trade. this include the lack of har- travel to the departure port, sealed and with monization in the area of food safety, which all the documents needed to export. (Custom, brings about increases in costs, among others Phitosanitary and others) Other issues like corporate social responsibil- Most of the Exporters put, during the loading ity, carbon foot print, food miles, fair trade, of trucks, inside some boxes a small electronic etc. seem to be part of the same phenomena. devices (thermometers and hygrometers ) to monitoring temperature and RH during None of these demands are recognized by the travel as a way to know if there was some the trade with a premium price or a different breaks of the cold chain. The importers or treatment in regard to those suppliers who do surveyors companies have access to this infor- not comply. mation. We are eager to increase our collaboration Final Comments with northern hemisphere entities in different areas like research & development, Chile is recognized as a leader in the exports biotechnology, environmental issues, qual- of fresh fruit from the southern hemisphere… ity, etc. but we still have a long way to go.

EC Marketing Standard for Sweet Peppers Hans-Georg Levin

Introduction The German market for 2007 Sweet Peppers In 1969, the UNECE standard for sweet pep- t pers was introduced and revised several times Imports 300,000 National production 2,100 until today – last in 2001. This standard was Exports 13,500 taken over by the EC and is in force as Regula- Losses 38,000 tion (EC) No 1455/99 until 30 June 2009. After National consumption 250,600 that date, the standard will be part of the an- per capita consumption 3 kg nexes in Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. Definition of produce The statistics of the FAO does not differentiate between sweet peppers and chillies. The standard for sweet peppers of the species Capsicum annuum var. annuum defines Worldproduction 2007 four commercial types: elongated (pointed) Chillies + peppers Mio. t Mio. ha such as Carliston from Turkey or Ramiro from World 26.0 1.70 Israel and the Netherlands, this type being up Asia 17.5 1.05 to 20 cm long and 4 cm in diameter; square America 3.2 0.18 (blunt) such as the California type which is the Europe 3.0 0.13 most important type on the German market; Africa 2.4 0.34 the Lamuyo is much longer than the Califor- nia type – Italy and Spain are the most impor- Producing coun- 2007 tant producers; Sweet Green® is a very new tries – TOP 10 Mio. t % type that is even fully green at full maturity, but very sweet and with a very high content China 14.03 54.0 of vitamin C; square tapering (peg top) the Mexico 1.69 6.5 traditional Hungarian type, flat (tomato pep- Indonesia 1.10 4.2 per) having relatively thick flesh, depending Turkey 1.09 4.2 on the variety more or less ripped and the Spain 1.07 4.1 placenta may completely fill the fruit. USA 0.86 3.3 Nigeria 0.72 2.8 However, the modern varieties don‘t show Egypt 0.48 1.8 the differences between the types that clearly Korea, Rep. 0.35 1.3 as do the old ones. Netherlands 0.34 1.3 Not covered by Heat Examples German imports 2007 the standard (1 – 10) of Sweet Peppers t % Capsicum Cayenne pep- Total 270,793 100,0 annuum var. 1 – 9 per, Thai chili EU-countries 223,104 82,4 annuum Non-EU-countries 47,689 17,6 Capsicum Netherlands 117,678 43,5 baccatum var. Aji Amarillo 6 Spain 81,768 30,2 pendulum Israel 33,751 12,5 Capsicum Hungary 12,533 4,6 frutescens Tabasco, Birdeye 9 Morocco 6,380 2,4 Capsicum Turkey 6,172 2,3 pubescens Rocoto pepper 9 Greece 4,288 1,6 Habanero, Italy 3,268 1,2 Capsicum Scotch Bonnet, 10 – 10+ Belgium 1,550 0,6 chinense Red Savina, Bhut Jolokia

By the way and with regard to the pungency hardly visible on green fruits. Further devel- of the fruit, the differences between and oped stages show pitting even on the outside within the species are not very distinctly and the spots are sunken. Serious pitting is marked either. Thus, it happens that commer- excluded. cial types or varieties that are known for their sweetness may express a slight pungency. Mindesteigenschaft „clean“

Minimum requirements Soiling is a big problem in sweet peppers. Fruits that can be regarded as “practically Minimum requirements „intact“ free of visible foreign matter” are those that only show a little dust in the calyx area. Fruits split because of a defect in development, damaged fruits or fruits with the calyx Minimum requirements „fresh in appear- missing partly or in total are excluded. ance“

Minimum requirements „sound“ Fresh sweet peppers are firm, turgescent, crisp and with shiny surface. Sweet peppers Fruits with signs of rotting sometimes show showing visible wilting are excluded. mould inside. Early signs of rotting are difficult to recognise in yellow types, while very Minimum requirements „practically free pointed types are very susceptible to rot- from pests“ ting especially at the tip – as this part is very susceptible to damages. Even the stalk must The cotton bollworm is a typical pest in sweet be sound as rotting on the stalk very quickly peppers (but also occurs in iceberg lettuce, develops into the fruit. But it is possible and tomatoes, peas and beans). Small damages or allowed to cut the stalk and to prepare the holes point tot he presence of this pest in the fruit in accordance with the standard by fruit. Those fruits are to be excluded. eliminating the rot. Minimum requirements „practically free Chilling injury from damage caused by pests“ Sweet peppers are very susceptible to low temperatures and may express chilling injury Bore holes (with or without pest) or bites are at temperatures below 7 °C. Fruits with chill- excluded. ing injury show a surface with several slightly Minimum requirements „well developed“ indented spots. Later the sunken spots develop and coalesce and deteriorate – especially When evaluating the development, the va- when the produce is transferred to warmer rietal type must be taken into consideration. temperatures. Sweet peppers with chilling The size is not the criterion for development. injury are excluded. Minimum requirements „free of damage Blossom end rot is a physiological disorder (Calcium deficiency) that mainly develops in caused by frost“ large fruited square types. The tissue at the Sweet peppers having experienced frost in blossom end first appears glassy, then discol- the field, brighten up, are glassy looking and ours to brownish and dries out. The damaged have black seeds. part is clearly delineated from the sound tissue. Sweet peppers with a damaged part Minimum requirements „free of unhealed larger than 1 cm2 is excluded. injuries“ Bruises in their light form appear as discol- Split fruits are excluded. oration. Serious bruises affecting the flesh are regarded as “not sound” and are excluded. Sunburn does not only develop in the open field but in the glass-house or tunnel as well. Pitting is a physiological disorder (Calcium In covered cultivation, especially the fruits deficiency) that at the beginning is only vis- of the outer rows are susceptible when the ible on the internal side of the flesh and is

© BLE, IAT - 2009 EC Marketing Standard for Sweet Peppers 43 leaves – serving as sun shade – have been Slight healed injuries are allowed provided removed. First the flesh brightens up, then the total area affected is not longer than 2 cm it becomes glassy and finally is dry and light or lager than 1 cm2. brownish. Slight dry superficial cracks not exceeding Minimum requirements „with peduncle an overall cumulative length of 3 cm attached“ This requirement should address the growth Cutting the fruits at the nod guarantees a cracks, but the acceptable area does not fit good shelf-live. The peduncle may be cut or to this type of defect. The standard would be shortened, but the calyx must remain intact. more appropriate if it would define an area. In our inspection, we allow a maximum of ¼ Firm is an ambiguous characteristic. Types of the total surface area to be covered with with thin fruit walls are less firm than the growth cracks. thick-walled types. However, sweet peppers loose their firmness when they experience Less firm without being withered high temperatures and a certain lack of water before harvest. Less firm without being withered: Visible withering is not allowed. Withering can be Class I accepted within the tolerances provided it does not exceed 1/3 of the total surface area . Practically free of blemishes Peduncle damaged or cut Is a requirement that allows a lot of interpretation. Slight growth cracks develop when the The calyx may be slightly damaged. plants are well supplied with water but the weather is cloudy. Under that condition, the Moreover, slight pitting is allowed provided skin splits because of the high pressure from not more than 50 % of the fruits show not the roots. The very fine splits suberise. more than 4 slight spots. Theses slight growth cracks are allowed provided the area covered does not exceed 1/8 of Silvering can be regarded as defect in colour- the total surface area of the fruit. To the same ing, but is not mentioned in the standard. extent slight defects in colouring are allowed. Moreover, slight pitting is allowed provided Sizing not more than 30 % of the fruits show not more than 4 slight spots. The minimum sizes specified for the relevant commercial types. But the minimum size The peduncle may be slightly damaged or cut does not apply to miniature sweet peppers. with the calyx intact. Presentation Class II The provision on uniform colouring is not Defects in shape and development only met by completely coloured fruit (red, yellow, green etc.) but by so-called “turning” These defects are not listed in Class I but are fruits as well. allowed in Class II. Tolerances are possible But it is essential that – at export or dispatch provided the edibility is not affected by hard stage – all fruits in the package must be turn- and corky tissue. Anyway, misshapen fruits ing. It is recommended to label , e. g. „yellow – are excluded. turning“. At subsequent marketing stages the turning may be completed and all fruits in Sunburn is allowed provided the total area the package may show – at the latest at retail affected is not longer than 2 cm or larger than stage – their final colouring. In the package 1 cm2. Slight sunburn appears as elucida- different colours of a commercial type may tion and develops further into suberisation. be mixed. But in that case all fruits in the Again, tolerances can be granted provided package must be uniform as regards quality the edibility is not affected. (class), origin and size.

In sales packages of a net weight not exceeding 1 kg and intended for the final consumer, sweet peppers of different colours and/or commercial types may be mixed. In that case, uniformity is required only for quality (class) and by colour or type for the origin. The uniformity in size is not required, this means the produce must not sized and labelling the size is not required too.

Out-Look

The UNECE is elaborating an explanatory brochure for sweet pepper and in this context the standard is revised. The result of this revision will be taken over for the EU standard.

Sweep peppers - quality production in Turkey Neslihan Ataş

Sweet Pepper is a variety of Capsicum annuum L. var. annuum and belongs to Solanaceae family. The homeland of the Pepper is tropical America. It was brought by Christopher Co- lumbus to Spain and it spread to England and to Europe after that. In the 17th century it was brought to South-East Asia by the Portuguese. The date peppers came to Turkey was in the 16th century.

Pepper Production in The World There are about 64.000 tonnes of peppers 23% exported to the world from Turkey each year. C hina It’s about 5 % of Turkey’s production. The Turkiye Nigeria financial value is 64 million dollars. Other Pepper Importer Countries From 52% T ur kiye 10%

30% 32% 9%

There are about 12 million tonnes of pepper G e rma ny production around the world. Turkey has a 10 B ulga ria 6% % share. Turkey produces 1.200.000 tonnes of Greece peppers a year. The city of Antalya has a 63% 7% 23% A us tr i a share of Turkey’s production. O the r

Turkey has a 2.3 % share among the world’s pepper exporter countries. Pepper T ypes Produced in T urkiye 8% Pepper Exporter Countries in the World 4%

45,0 41,1 40,0

35,0

30,0 25,6 28% 25,0 20,0 16,3 60% 15,0 Netherlands S pain 10,0 S ivri 6,7 6,1 Canada 5,0 2,3 1,9 USA D olma F ra nc e 0,0 T urk iye Ç a rli s to n O the r Other

fields which are 0.6 % of the total protected cultivation areas. The largest soilless cultivation centres in Turkey are: Antalya, İzmir, Manisa, Mersin, Denizli, K. Maraş, respectively.

Pepper Types Produced in Protected Cultivation Areas in Turkiye

20%

50%

30% S ivri Ç a rlis to n Dolma

Authorised establishments on sweet pepper production and export are:

Protected Cultivation has a 18 % share of the total pepper production in Turkey. Peppers have a 15% share in the total protected cultivation. The cultivation of peppers is done mostly along the west and south coastlines, i. e. Mediterranean region: Demre, Finike, Kumluca, Kazanlı (İçel).

There are about 31.000 hectares of greenhouse fields for pepper cultivation in Turkey.

Optimum conditions in the greenhouses are Quality inspection of sweet peppers is based 21°C - 32°C and 70-75 % relative humidity. The on the Turkish Standard TS1205 for fresh common threats for protected cultivation are peppers that is not destined for processing. a) viruses (TSWV, PVY), b) bacterial, seed- The Turkish Standard is based on the UNECE borne diseases, c) fungal disease (powdery standard. However, the presentation is very mildew, botrytis, fusarium wilt, phytophtho- important. In export, unsized produce and ra blight, anthracnose, grey mould), d) pests produce not presented in rows and layers is (white fly, red spider mite, thrips, aphids, allowed in Class II only. broad mite (Aceria anthocoptes), mites (Bre- vipalpus phoenicis), e) environmental defects (sunburn, frost, blossom end rot, deficiencies in Ca, Mn, Cu, Zn, pesticide injuries).

There are 31.000 hectares of fields for soilless cultivation around the world. Netherlands and Spain come 1st for soilless cultivation. In Turkey, soilless cultivation has started in 1995. Now there are about 200 hectares of

Sweet peppers – Quality production in the Netherlands Gerrit Jan Kornet

Sweet pepper - power with vitamin C and E Who is P8? • Up to three times more vitamin C than an • P8 is an association of nine producer or- orange ganisations growing sweet peppers in the Netherlands • One half of a sweet pepper – orange, yellow or red – covers the daily consumption • • since 2006 in vitamin C and 65 % of vitamin E • • covering 95 % of the total sweet pep- • “All in” – the number of good vitamins per growers in the Netherlands and micronutrient is exceptionally high • Area of 1.300 ha in 2009 in sweet peppers – red 700 ha Sweet pepper - power with quality – yellow 300 ha Dutch Sweet Pepper – green 175 ha • Stands for cleanliness, security, health, – orange 95 ha taste, quality and diversity – specialities 30 ha • Grown with responsibility, guarantee and • Yearly turnover about 450 Mio. Euro passion Why P8? • Farmers are known in the world for their competence from experience Netherlands until 1995 • Production in the greenhouse is eco- • Sweet peppers were marketed by auctions friendly and creates optimal conditions – Open market place • Outstanding taste quality – Total of the Dutch production in offer • Delicious, crisp, glossy, miscellaneous in – All international fruit and vegetable shape, colour and preparation (ideal in trade had the opportunity to buy nutritive value and vitamin content) • Auctions where organised through the central office of the auctions – Marketing – Blip of the „Dutch Meisje” • Sales promotion were organised by auctions and their central office

International development after 1995 • Enormous increase in production in Spain • Strong increase of fruit and vegetable sales in supermarkets • Enormous enlargement of the supermarkets; few but bigger clients

Consequences for the Netherlands • End of the auctions with the exemption of Veiling ZON • Breaking apart of co-operation of auctions Main Features on Modern Greenhouse • Stop of common marketing activities Production in the Netherlands • Growers organise themselves in producer • Biological pest management organisations • Production guideline of “Milieu Bewuste The Netherlands in 2005 Teelt” • Producer organisations • Hygiene code HACCP – Competition • GlobalGAP certified – Are played of against each other • Greenhouses with the rating “Groen • Importance of Dutch sweet peppers no Label” longer recognised internationally • Glass is specially translucent – which is • This situation motivated the Dutch sweet favourable for plant growth pepper producers to look for new possibilities of co-operation in 2005 • Glass is regularly cleaned • Result: P8 • Closed water cycle Aim of P8 • Rain water is collected, cleaned, used and • To convince consumers and trade in Ger- used again in the greenhouse many of the attractiveness of Dutch sweet • Blinds in the greenhouse safe energy in peppers cold weather • Message: Dutch sweet pepper is a sensual, healthy and miscellanous experience! • The champagne Colourfultaste.nl is part of the active merchandising of P8 Slogan “Let’s act jointly where we profit from cooperation!”

Defects in sweet peppers • Marginal difference of quality in nl. Sweet Wijnen generation of energy from 18 ha peppers sweet peppers • Most frequent defects (source: AQS) • 3 KWK - equipments for cogeneration of – Rot on the stem, most frequent heat and power – softness • production of 9 MW electricity per hour – less yield because of wrinkling and age - 0,3 MW for the production of sweet spots in red sweet peppers peppers – Browning in green sweet peppers - 8,7 MW for the delivery to the power – Internal rots station • Negative impact of internal rots and rot • about 40.000 MW electricity are delivered on the peduncle is much higher than that to a power station per year from age spots – the rots are recognised by consumers • Wijnen delivers per year – Sweet peppers for 1 Mio. German house- Conditions of storage and marketing holds • Quality assurance – Energy for 6.000 Dutch households • The aim of producers of P8 is a good qual- Characteristics of the production of sweet ity on the shelf peppers • Improvement of the sweet pepper quality • Production from December to November • Temperature for production • The quantity and quality in production - 21 °C during the day • P8 operates a comparison of varieties - 18 °C during the night • Quality requirements (EU) • Harvest from March to November • Yield 26-28 kg/m2 Quality improvement of sweet peppers • Regular harvest impossible • Starting point is – to deliver a guaranteed • Biological pest management good and healthy sweet pepper tot he European consumer • A lot of manual labour • Green fruit can be harvested from red • Monthly checks of shelf life of Dutch varieties, but not from yellow or orange sweet peppers ones • Broad quality control of Dutch sweet peppers – before the delivery to the client

• Producers do have an obligation to in- Be good and tell it form about quality problems – in order to exclude sweet peppers that do not fulfil • A campaign to support the marketing of the high expectations directly from the Dutch produce market –Labelling the origin

• A campaign to support the marketing of sweet peppers

Origin is important for confidence…

...but we are insufficient identifiable by the German consumer: • To label the produce, the producer and the trader from the Netherlands, a new label was created. This label shall contribute to the confidence building of consum- Production ers. .NL• stands for a sector distinguished through competence, security, commitment, transparency and innovation – to present optimal guaranteed quality of Dutch vegetables and fruit.

Colourfultaste.nl – the collective promotion campaign for Dutch sweet peppers

• Communication activities in 2008

• Communication activities in 2009

P8 - Communication activities– 2009

Thank you for your attention !

General Marketing Standard for Fruit and Vegetables Heinrich Stevens

The provision of article 113a of Regulation (EC) classes or within the tolerances, while this No 1234/2007 that fruit and vegetables may standard is going to be withdrawn? only be marketed in „sound, fair and marketable“ condition has been defined through 2. How to assess a product that – up to now the general marketing standard pursuant to – has not been covered by a marketing annex 1 part A of Regulation (EC) No (EG) Nr. standard and that eventually has product 1580/2007. The general marketing standard specific characteristics that are excluded applies for nearly all products of the fruit and according to the minimum quality re- vegetable trade, that are neither covered by quirements? a specific marketing standard nor explicitly excluded from the standards. A list of 3. How to differentiate „ready to eat“ or products not being covered by the general „kitchen ready“ products that are exclud- marketing standard has been published on ed from the general marketing standard the BLE website: www.ble.de – Kontrolle und by article 3, paragraph 1, letter d) from Zulassung – Qualitätskontrolle – Einfuhr- und primary products? Ausfuhrkontrolle. 4. Is it possible to reject products covered by The general marketing standard includes the general marketing standard because minimum quality requirements, minimum of internal defects, lack of maturity or maturity requirements, tolerances and provi- taste? sions on marking the country of origin (s. at- tachment). This standard will be applied from By means of examples of different products, 1 July 2009. To guarantee a harmonised in- the perspective of the specific marketing terpretation and application of this standard standards (congruent with the UNECE stand- within the EU, it is necessary to explore and ards) actually in force and of the general reflect its provision for the different products marketing standard will be compared. covered by this standard.

In principle, the minimum quality requirements, minimum maturity requirements and tolerances correspond to the UNECE standards or the UNECE standard layout. Pursuant to Annex VI point 2.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 the OECD explanatory brochures have to be taken into consideration during inspection. Although an OECD explanatory brochure for a general marketing standard is not available the existing brochures can be taken into consideration. The minimum quality requirements are part of all product specific standards and can be interpreted and applied irrespective of the product concerned.

The following problems have to be addressed when the general marketing standard is introduced and applied:

1. How to assess a product that is actually covered by a specific standard allowing certain product specific characteristics and offences against the minimum quality requirements either in the frame of the

Minimum quality requirement „intact“

Explanatory note of OECD: The produce must not have any damage or injury spoiling the integrity of the produce.

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for carrots Class I: 10 % respectively 10 % damaged carrots

Class II: 35% broken carrots and/or carrots without tip

Class I: 100 % carrots with small cracks due to washing

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for beans Class I: 15 % respectively 10 % damaged beans Class II: 40 % beans with the stalk and a small section of the narrow part of the neck missing. The pods must be closed, General Marketing Standard dry and not discoloured.

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for scorzonera Class I: slight mechanical damage and 10 % damaged scorzonera including 10 % broken tips (minimum length broken tips 12 cm) Class II: mechanical damage and 20 % broken tips (minimum length 12 cm)

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for cultivated mushrooms

EC-marketing Standard until 30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard Class I: 10 % respectively 10 % damaged cultivated mushrooms including hollow Class II: 100 % hollow stems, provided stems, provided the hollow part is sound, fresh and not the hollow part is discoloured sound, fresh and not discoloured

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for broccoli

Classes I and II: 100 % hollow stems, 10 % damaged broccoli including hol- provided the hollow part is sound, fresh low stems, provided the hollow part is and not discoloured sound, fresh and not discoloured

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for asparagus

Class II: 15 % externally visible hollow 10 % damaged asparagus including shoots externally visible hollow shoots, provided the hol- Class I: 10 % respectively low part is sound, fresh and not discoloured Class II: 20 % shoots showing cracks due and asparagus showing to washing cracks due to washing.

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for garlic

Classes I and II: 100 % bulbs with cracks/ 10 % damaged bulbs including bulbs General Marketing Standard tears in the outer skin with cracks in the outer skin, missing cloves and/or Class II: 100 % bulbs with up to 3 cloves completely or missing partly missing outer skin 10 % bulbs with the outer dry skin missing

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for headed cabbages Classes I and II: 100 % heads with cracks 10 % damaged heads including cracks in in the base the base and damage due to trimming Classes I and II: 100 % heads damaged due to trimming EC-marketing Standard until 30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for inshell hazelnuts Classes I and II: 100 % cracks in the shell 10 % damaged inshell hazelnuts includ- provided the kernel is physically pro- ing cracks in the shell tected Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for leeks Class II: 10 % leeks being damaged at the 10 % damaged leeks base of the shaft

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for melons Classes I and II: 100 % cantaloup/Charen- 10 % damaged cantaloup/Charentais tais melons showing radial cracks melons including cracks due to matu- around the peduncle due to maturity rity, slight cracks and/or deep Class II: 100 % melons with slight cracks scratches or deep scratches General Marketing Standard

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for ribbed celery Class II: 100 % ribbed celery with up to 10 % damaged ribbed celery including two broken leaf stalks broken leaf stalks Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for onions Class II: 100 % onions with up to 1/3 of 10 % damaged the protecting outer skin missing, onions including provided the flesh is undamaged onions with the outer skin missing

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ for pineapples

EC-marketing Standard until 30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard Classes Extra, I and II : 100 % pineapples 10 % pineapples intact, complete with intact, complete with the crown, which the crown , which may be reduced and/ may be reduced and/or trimmed or trimmed

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ in case of trimming

For a number of products, there is no UNECE standard that could be used as an alternative. Mi- nor or major damages due to trimming or other mechanical impact are allowed within the 10 % tolerance of the general marketing standard. The following examples are given:

- Hamburg parsley, that are damaged respectively trimmed on the upper part of the roots,

- fennel with the base or the bulb damaged,

- Hamburg parsley cut in half to better adjust the weight of a prepack of 250 g,

- celeriac being severely damaged due to trimming.

Damage due to trimming is always very critical as the defective parts are always areas of high transpiration and thus areas of more severe waterloss.

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ in special cases

Some of the products being latterly covered by the general marketing standard, are offered in a special presentation that might not meet the minimum quality requirement „intact“.

As an example the following products are listed below:

- horseradish is always marketed with a cut root and with the side roots removed,

- parsnips and Hamburg parsley loose their tips when harvested and thus are almost always on offer without tips,

- fennel is always marketed without leaves or at least with clearly trimmed leaves,

- rhubarb is always marketed with trimmed leaves,

- ribbed celery is marketed with or without leaves,

- celeriac is marketed with or without leaves,

- celeriac is marketed trimmed and cleaned, some roots being removed,

- cauliflowers are presented with leaves, with trimmed leaves or without leaves,

- kohlrabi is presented with or without leaves,

- pineapples are presented with or without crown; this is in conformity with the UNECE standard.

Minimum quality requirement „intact“ or „ready to eat“ or „kitchen ready“ Pursuant to article 3 paragraph 1 letter d) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007, products that are cut or trimmed to make them „ready to eat“ or „kitchen ready“, are exempted from the general and from the specific marketing standard. Important is the reference to „cut or trimmed“, a step being necessary to make the product ready to eat or kitchen ready. A product is considered „ready to eat“ when it can be eaten as presented without any further treatment, e.g: - single, eventually trimmed or cut pieces of lettuce leaves, - grated vegetables, - cut fruits, and peeled or pips removed if applicable. A product is considered „kitchen ready“ when the prepared product must be cooked before eating, e.g.: - herbs and vegetables for making soup (partly cut), - leeks, ribbed celery, rhubarb of which the stalks are cut at both ends (leaves and roots), - beans cut at both ends, - fresh shelled seeds from legumes.

Minimum quality requirement „sound“

Explanatory note of OECD: The product must be free from disease or serious deterioration which appreciably affects their appearance, edibility or keeping quality. In particular products affected by rotting, even if the signs are very slight but liable to make the product unfit for consumption upon arrival at their destination are to be excluded. Products with the following defects are therefore excluded: rotting, serious bruises, fungal, bacterial or viral diseases, physiological defects (such as damage caused by hail, sunscorch, chilling injury, nutritional disease).

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for pineapples 0 % tolerance includes the crown as the 0 % tolerance edibility is affected. includes the crown as the By removing the crown this defect can edibility is af- be cleared fected.

For only 10 % of the products the defect can be cleared by removing the crown .

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for cauliflowers

Class II: 100 % slight traces of damage 10 % products with damage caused by General Marketing Standard caused by disease, e.g. viral infection diseases, provided the edibility is not impaired

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for headed cabbage Class II: 100 % slight traces of damage 10 % products with damage caused by caused by disease disease, provided the edibility is not impaired

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for inshell walnuts Classes Extra, I and II: 8 %, 10 %, 15 % ker- 0 % kernels being rancid, mouldy or nels being rancid, mouldy or damaged damaged by pests as their edibility is EC-Marketing Standard until 30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard by pests impaired

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for cultivated mushrooms Class II: 100 % slight internal moisture of 10 % defects caused by disease, provided the stalk the edibility is not impaired

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for asparagus Class I: 100 % very slight respectively 10 % shoots showing rust, provided the edibility is not Class II: 100 % slight traces of rust on impaired the shoot, provided this is removable through normal peeling by the consumer.

0 % rust on the tips, as tips are not 0 % rust on the peeled tips, as tips are not peeled

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for courgettes Class I: 100 % very slight respectively 10 % defects caused by disease, provided the edibility is not impaired Class II: 100 % slight defects caused by disease such, e. g. viral infection General Marketing Standard

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for onions Class II: 100 % slight marking caused by 10 % defects caused by disease, provided diseases, e. g. physiological defects like the edibility is not impaired glassiness or slight dry mould between the dry outer skins 0 % in case of mould on the 0 % in case of mould on the edible part edible part EC-Marketing Standard until 30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard

Minimum quality requirement „sound“ for inshell hazelnuts Classes Extra, I and II: 3 %, 5 %, 6 % kernels 0 % kernels being rancid, mouldy or being rancid, mouldy or damaged by damaged by pests as their edibility is pests impaired

Minimum quality requirement „clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter“

Explanatory note of OECD: The products must be practically free of visible soil, dust, residue or other foreign matter.

Minimum quality requirement „clean“ for leeks Class I: 100 % slight respectively 10 % soiled products, provided the edibility is not Class II: 100 % traces of soil within the impaired shaft (and the insertion of the leaves) General Marketing Standard Minimum quality requirement „clean“ for cultivated mushrooms Class I: 100 % slight respectively 10 % soiled products, provided the edibility is not impaired Class II: 100 % traces of casing material

Minimum quality requirement „clean“ for scorzonera 100 % products showing 5 % by weight 10 % soiled products, provided the adhering soil; pursuant to the UNECE edibility is not impaired standard EC-Marketing Standard until 30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard

Minimum quality requirement „practically free from pests“

Explanatory note of OECD: The presence of pests can detract from the commercial presentation and acceptance of the products. Therefore, the acceptable limit would be the odd insect, mite or other pest in the package or sample; any colonies would lead to the rejection of the produce. General Marketing Standard

Minimum quality requirement „practically free from pests“ for onions Class II: 100 % slight pest infestation (e. g. 0 % pest infestation affecting the thrips) edibility EC-Marketing Standard until 30.06.009 or UNECE-Standard

Minimum quality requirement „practically free from pests“ for plums Class I: 2 % respectively 0 % pest infestation affecting the edibility Class II: 4 % worm eaten fruit General Marketing Standard

Minimum quality requirement „practically free from pests“ for cherries Klasse Extra: 2 % bzw. 0 % pest infestation affecting the edibility Klassen I & II: 4 % madige Früchte

Minimum quality requirement „practically free from pests“ for headed cabbage Class II: 100 % slight signs of pest infesta- 0 % pest infestation affecting the tion (the odd aphid on the outer leaves, edibility but no colonies), provided the edibility is not impaired EC-Marketing Standard until 30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard

Minimum quality requirement „practically free from damage caused by pests affecting the flesh“

Explanatory note of OECD: Pest damage affecting the flesh makes the produce unfit for consumption.

Minimum quality requirement „damage caused by pests“ for onions Class II: 100 % onions with damage 10 % damage caused by pests affecting caused by thrips on the dry outer leaves the edibility

0 % onions with damage caused by 0 % damage caused by thrips on the General Marketing Standard thrips on the edible part of the bulb edible part

Minimum quality requirement „damage caused by pests“ for melons/watermelons

100 % feeding damage caused by slugs 100 % damage caused by pests affecting that does not impair the pulp (edible the edibility

or UNECE-Standard part) EC-Marketing Standard until 30.06.2009

Minimum quality requirement „damage caused by pests“ for leeks General Marketing Standard 0 % leeks with damage due to thrips on 0 % damage due to pests affecting the the outer leaves that are edible edibility

Minimum quality requirement „damage caused by pests“ for cucumbers 0 % damage caused by slugs as the peel 0 % damage due to pests affecting the of cucumbers is included in the edible edibility EC-Marketing Standard until

30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard part

Minimum quality requirement „The condition of the products must be such as to enable them: – to withstand transport and handling, – to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.“ This minimum quality requirement covers those minimum quality requirements that are product specific but cannot – in principle – be met by all products. Some of these defects may be allowed within the tolerances, others don‘t. Class II: 100 % leeks running to seed with 10 % products showing defects giving soft flower stem within the sheathed them an unsatisfactory condition at the part place of destination, provided the edibility is not impaired Class II: 5 % garlic with externally visible sprouts Class II: 20 % onions with externally visible sprouts (> 1cm) Class II: 10 % carrots with secondary root and leaf growth General Marketing Standard Class II: 10 % flower stems exceeding ¾ of the length of the chicory Class II: 10 % overripe fruits Class II: 10 % grooved asparagus shoots (and externally not visible hollowness) that are difficult to peel and cause more waste 0 % hard flower stems in case of leeks, garlic, onions, carrots 0 % woodiness in case of asparagus, kohlrabi, radishes 0 % greenish chicory 0 % products showing defects giving 0 % hard seeds in case of cucumbers, them an unsatisfactory courgettes, aubergines, beans condition at the place of destination and impair- 0 % overtrimmed head cabbages where ing the edibility

EC-Marketing Standard until 30.06.2009 or UNECE-Standard the ratio of stalk to the edible part is impaired

Minimum maturity requirements

„The products must be sufficiently developed and display satisfactory ripeness. The development and state of maturity of the products must be such as to enable them to continue their ripening process and to reach a satisfactory degree of ripeness.“

Minimum levels for all classes: The objective minimum levels (such as Brix, juice content, colouring) fixed in a 10 °Brix in case of Charentais melons UNECE standard cannot be taken as the

single reference to determine a suffi- General Marketing Standard 8 °Brix in case of other melons cient maturity 8 °Brix in case of watermelons

42 % juice content in case of limes

33 % juice content in case of grapefruits

8 °Brix in case of pummelos

or UNECE-Standard 9 °Brix in case of Oroblanco (grapefruit- hybrid) EC-Marketing Standard until 30.06.2009

The defects and their assessment here show that the general marketing standard may be somewhat more strict than the product specific UNECE standard. It is clearly visible that a harmonisation is necessary with respect to the interpretation of the general marketing standard – if possible before 1 July 2009. In the near future, this is an important task for the inspection services of the Member states.

ANNEX I OF REGULATIION (EC) No 1580/2007

MARKETING STANDARDS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2a

PART A

GENERAL MARKETING STANDARD

1. Minimum quality requirements

Subject to the tolerances allowed, the products shall be:

– intact,

– sound; products affected by rotting or deterioration such as to make them unfit for consumption are excluded,

– clean, practically free of any visible foreign matter,

– practically free from pests,

– practically free from damage caused by pests affecting the flesh,

– free of abnormal external moisture,

– free of any foreign smell and/or taste.

The condition of the products must be such as to enable them:

– to withstand transport and handling,

– to arrive in satisfactory condition at the place of destination.

2. Minimum maturity requirements

The products must be sufficiently developed and display satisfactory ripeness.

The development and state of maturity of the products must be such as to enable them to continue their ripening process and to reach a satisfactory degree of ripeness.

3. Tolerance

A tolerance of 10 % by number or weight of product not satisfying the minimum quality requirements shall be permitted in each lot. This tolerance shall not however cover product affected by rotting or any other deterioration rendering it unfit for consumption.

4. Marking of origin of produce

Full name of the country of origin. For products originating in a Member State this shall be in the language of the country of origin or any other language understandable by the consumers of the country of destination. For other products, this shall be in any language understandable by the consumers of the country of destination.

The Future of UNECE Standards in the EC Dr. Ulrike Bickelmann

Pursuant article 2a of Regulation (EC) No class is neither intended for nor explicitly 1580/2007 a general marketing standard is excluded. introduced in the EC law by 1st July 2009. This general standard covers most of the fruit and • For products covered by the general vegetable species traded on the fresh market marketing standard and labelled with a and contains provisions on minimum re- class, the UNECE standard is the measure quirements, tolerances and marking, but no of comparison. classification. The general marketing standard guarantees that the fruit and vegetables • The UNECE standards for fresh fruit and on the market are sound, fair and of market- vegetables (potatoes being excluded) and able quality. for nuts become a legally binding character without being explicitly part of the From the point of view of the industry, the EC law. This is especially the case, when a following aspects are missing in the general product does not meet the general mar- standard: keting standard. In those cases the more generous, product specific UNECE stand- • classification. ard may be applied to cure a violation against the general standard. In the fruit and vegetables sector, the sale based on classification has proven its • In case a private standard is applied and value for a realistic price fixing and a well no UNECE standard exists for the relevant functioning of the market. product, this private standard may not be Classes, defined as a minimum quality, used to cure a violation against the gen- guarantee a fair competition – but only if eral standard. they are recognised and applied as a binding measure for comparison. The structure and content of the UNECE standards are well known in the EC as the • product specific provisions. existing marketing standards and the UN- ECE standards are 100 per cent identical. The Due to its shortness and generaliza- standardisation bodies of the EC Commis- tion, the general standard is not specific sion and the UNECE did cooperate very well enough for the majority of products. This during the last years in order to guarantee a becomes obvious in comparison to spe- perfect harmonisation of the standards. cific marketing standards. The general standard is mostly more strict than the The new position of the UNECE standards UNECE standards. in EC law reveals only one weakness: the 50 UNECE standards cover a broad range of Article 2a of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 products, but they show gaps in the case of contains one option to comply with the products of regional relevance or products of wishes of the industry and to compensate for a traded volume below the volume of prod- the weaknesses of the general standard: ucts that have been standardised since now. In case the holder is able to show that the product is in conformity with any applicable Therefore, German producers did suggest, to UNECE standard, the product shall be consid- developing and approving new UNECE stand- ered as conforming to the general marketing ards in 2009 if possible. These new standards standard. This is valid especially when the are needed as a basis for classification of these product specific UNECE standard allows more new products. defects than the general standard. Thus, new rules on competition are intro- First proposals made by German producers duced in the EC law: are related to standards for lambs lettuce, kohlrabi, rocket, kale, chard, pak-choi, pars- • For products covered by the general nips, Hamburg parsley, radishes, turnip tops, marketing standard the marking of a

© BLE, IAT - 2009 The Future of UNECE Standards in the EC 67 beetroot, fresh herbs, currants, blackberries, for those specialities – in national and inter- gooseberries. This would be 15 new standards national trade. in a first approach. More proposals are on the wish list for the next years. A standard setting body such as the UNECE could be interested in a long list of standards The industry may express their needs and – especially when the total number of stand- justify their request. But new UNECE standards is good for the reputation of the relevant ards can only be proposed and approved by body. governmental representatives. Arguments supporting an application could But the UNECE does not define its quality and be the volume of production, economic im- importance by the number of their standards. portance in intra and extra-trade of a country The quality and necessity of the standards is or region, definition of characteristics of the more important. It does not make sense to product. develop standards of limited interest for the industry. Such insignificant standards will not For products on that wish list it is difficult or be updated, are quickly out of date and sink nearly impossible to provide for statistics of into a doze – they do exist but they are not production or import/export. These products applied. are specialities or niche products that are mainly covered by CN codes summarizing a It is important to avoid those mistakes by number of products (table 1). developing only those product specific standards where the product is economically Examples: important or has special characteristics. In lambs lettuce is covered by CN code 0709 90 all other cases, it should be checked whether 10 „other lettuce than Lactuca sativa or chic- several products could be combined in a ory“. This CN code covers in addition rocket standard for a product group. and dandelion. In those standards for product groups, prod- Kohlrabi is covered by CN code 0704 90 90 ucts with similar characteristics and irrespec- „other cabbage“ comprising in addition savoy tive their volume produced or marketed cabbage, Chinese cabbage, broccoli, kale etc. would be combined. Thus an essential pre- The statistical data for parsnips and Ham- condition for the application of the standard burg parsley are covered by CN code 0706 and its long lasting usefulness and updating 90 90 „other turnips“ summarising in addi- could be guaranteed. tion beetroot, radishes and bulbous chervil. Chard, pak choi, turnip tops and other stalk The requests of the German producers for vegetables that could be interesting for stand- new UNECE standards could be realised as ardisation are covered by CN codes 0704 90 follows: a product specific standard for lambs 90, 0706 90 90, 0709 40 00, 0709 90 10, 0709 lettuce, rocket and kohlrabi and for the prod- 90 20, 0709 90 90 – all being mixed codes that uct groups root vegetables, tubercle vegeta- do not allow a product specific evaluation. bles, stalk vegetables and berry fruit.

However, valid arguments for new UNECE Proposal for a new UNECE standard for standards for those specialities are the neces- lambs lettuce sity for product specific standards and the definition of minimum quality. These stand- Lambs lettuce (Valerianella locusta) re- ards must define the typical characteristics of quires a product specific UNECE standard the product and – where necessary and with because of the special presentation in ro- caution – the deviation from the minimum settes, „trimmed“ or „untrimmed“ as well as requirements. „washed“ and „unwashed“. In case of „un- Provisions on uniformity or mixtures of va- washed“ lambs lettuce the limit allowed for rieties and/or commercial types could be of soiling has to be defined. In addition to that relevance too. the limit for damaged leaves should be de- The UNECE standards – in their capacity as fined. Two classes and no provisions on sizing minimum standards – may provide the gen- are proposed. eral guideline for fair competition and well functioning and development of the markets

Proposal for a new UNECE standard for In case of tubercle vegetables the limit for rocket acceptable cracks would have to be defined as well as the presentation with or without Rocket (Eruca sativa, Diplotaxis tenuifolia, leaves and with or without the rootlet at- Diplotaxis muralis) requires a product specific tached. Two classes and simple provisions on UNECE standard defining the presentation as sizing are proposed. single leaves. In addition the limit for damaged leaves should be defined. Two classes Proposal for a new UNECE standard for and simple provisions on sizing are proposed. stalk vegetables

Proposal for a new UNECE standard for The requirements for stalk vegetables are kohlrabi in principle the same as for ribbed celery and rhubarb. For obvious reasons a UNECE Kohlrabi (Brassica oleracea var. gongylodes) standard for stalk vegetables is proposed. This requires a product specific UNECE standard standard could comprise chard (Beta vulgaris defining the presentation „with leaves“ and ssp. cicla var. flavescens), pak choi (Brassica „without leaves“ as well as the limit for dam- rapa chinensis-group), cardoon (Cynara car- aged leaves and cracks in the product. Two dunculus), catalogna (Cichorium intybus var. classes and simple provisions on sizing are foliosum) and dandelion (Taraxacum offici- proposed. nale) and could integrate the UNECE standards for ribbed celery FFV-12 and rhubarb Proposal for a new UNECE standard for FFV-40. For stalk vegetables the presentation root vegetables with or without leaves, as plant or single stalks as well as the limit for damaged stalks The requirements for root vegetables are in should be defined. Two classes and simple principle the same as for carrots. For obvious provisions on sizing are proposed. reasons a UNECE standard for root vegetables is proposed. This standard could comprise Proposal for a new UNECE standard for parsnips (Pastinaca sativa), Hamburg parsley berry fruit (Petroselinum crispum var. tuberosum), bulbous chervil (Chaerophyllum bulbosum), and The German producers did request UNECE salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius). standards for currants, blackberries and The UNECE standards for carrots FFV-10, gooseberries. As the provisions would be horse-radish FFV-20 and scorzonera FFV-33 very similar for those fruit and the existing should be integrated. In case of root vegeta- standards for raspberries and bilberries/blue- bles, the presentation „with/without leaves“ berries, it is proposed to develop one UNECE has to be defined as well as the limit for standard for berry fruit. This standard could broken and/or cracked roots. In addition to comprise black berries (Rubus fruticosus), that it has to be defined which of the species boysenberries (Rubus loganobaccus), currants is regularly marketed without their tips (e.g (Ribes rubrum, R. nigrum), gooseberries (Ribes horse-radish, parsnip, Hamburg parsley). Two uva-crispa var. sativum), lingonberries (Vaccin- classes and simple provisions on sizing are ium vitis-idaea), and cranberries (Vaccinium proposed. macrocarpon) and could integrate the UNECE standards for bilberries/blueberries FFV-07 as Proposal for a new UNECE standard for well as for raspberries FFV-32. For berry fruit tubercle vegetables and depending on the species, the minimum maturity level („hard ripe“), limit for bruises The requirements for tubercle vegetables are and eventually a tolerance for worm eaten in principle the same as for radishes. For obvi- fruit should be defined. Two classes and sim- ous reasons a UNECE standard for tubercle ple provisions on sizing are proposed. vegetables is proposed. This standard could comprise beetroot (Beta vulgaris), turnips Outlook (Brassica rapa), swedes (Brassica napus subsp. rapifera) and celeriac (Apium graveolens var. Based on the new regulation on standards rapaceum) and in addition to that the UNECE being applied from 1 July 2009 in the EC, standard for radishes FFV-43. the governments of the EU member states

© BLE, IAT - 2009 The Future of UNECE Standards in the EC 69 should feel obliged to support the requests of their industry for new UNECE standards. This would not exclude any check and co-ordina- tion with all parties concerned – industry and consumers. New UNECE standards for single products or groups of products are necessary to avoid the risk that certain products might not meet the requirements of the general standard because of their special characteristics.

From the point of view of the European industry, the trial period for recommendations should be avoided. A trial in the EU is only possible if the standard is approved as standard, the recommendation does not count. In case these standards would need some cor- rections, they could be amended at any time and following their practical application.

These proposals for new standards will be submitted to UNECE in short term, to allow a deep and constructive discussion at the next session in Geneva. This intense preparation might hopefully lead to a successful implementation of new UNECE standards.

world Import Export Import Export Table 1 production Germany Germany EC EC lambs lettuce, rocket, dandelion etc. 130,504 t 21,372 t 517,505 t 453,644 t kohlrabi etc. 99,986 t 15,419 t 293,546 t 258,833 t carrots etc. 201,980 t 28,170 t 930,886 t 765,704 t horse-radish 4,337 t 1,358 t 13,002 t 903 t celeriac 10,069 t 3,479 t 65,588 t 54,119 t other root vegetables 44,359 t 16,683 t 182,151 t 14,973 t root and tubercle vegetables in total 260,745 t 49,690 t 1 191,627 t 835,699 t ribbed celery 7,396 t 3,225 t 98,413 t 98,116 t chard and cardoon 2,838 t 103 t 7,901 t 8,543 t dandelion, lambs lettuce, racket 130,504 t 21,372 t 517,505 t 453,644 t etc. pak-Choi etc. 99,986 t 15,419 t 293,546 t 258,833 t stalk vegetables in total 240,724 t 40,119 t 917,365 t 819,136 t raspberries, blackberries 1 192,000 t 15,291 t 898 t 73,700 t 47,900 t currants 888,000 t 4,518 t 888 t 10,300 t 9,900 t blueberries, cranberries 604,000 t 2,534 t 861 t 34,000 t 20,000 t gooseberries 119,000 t 1,483 t 66 t 3,700 t 2,300 t berry fruit in total 2 803,000 t 23,826 t 2,713 t 121,700 t 80,100 t

Comparison to other produce covered by UNECE standards apricots 3 013,000 t 35,407 t 1,344 t 111,900 t 114,100 t cherries 3 154,000 t 41,921 t 8,054 t 60,000 t 9,400 t kiwi fruit 1 204,000 t 134,829 t 9,184 t 260,900 t 139,100 t

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 – panel discussion – Participants: Sandrine Valentin, Christiane Henning, Dr. Lajos Nemeth, István Ecsedi, Dr. Andreas Brügger, Karl Schmitz Presentation: Dr. Peter Sutor Sutor Henning To conclude the presentations and the inten- In preparation of the new regulation, intensive discussion related to the general market- sive and controversial discussions took place. ing standard and the reform of the common Some member states wanted to conserve the market organisation, we want to review the existing system of marketing standards. Oth- principles of standards for fruit and vegeta- ers, including Germany, would have support- bles in this panel discussion. I welcome on ed a even more progressive liberalisation. this panel: Ms Valentin from the EC Commis- The Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and sion, Ms Henning from the Federal Ministry of Consumer Protection is of the view, that the Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, release and control of detailed rules related Dr. Brügger from the German Association on to the quality of fruit and vegetables do not Fruit and Vegetable Trade, Mr Schmitz from belong to the core activities of governmen- the Federal Association of Producer Organisa- tal tasks. This task can be taken over by the tions, Dr. Nemeth form the Hungarian Min- industry. istry of Agriculture and Mr Ecsedi from the Hungarian Inspection Service. In the frame of the reform of the market organisation of 2007, the new regulation on Valentin marketing standards being applicable from amended by Regulation (EC) No 1221/2008 July is an acceptable compromise that offers will be applicable from 1 July 2009. This starting points for simplification. regulation follows the reform of the common Specific marketing standards will be main- market organisation in the fruit and vegeta- tained for the ten economically most im- ble sector. We can recap the regulation in portant products only. All other products three points: will be covered by the general marketing standard providing a certain minimum level 1. This regulation reduces the number of on quality. In addition to that, the industry specific marketing standards from 36 to is challenged. One possibility could be that 10. The marketing standards for apples, producers and traders come to an agreement citrus fruit, kiwifruit, lettuces, peaches to apply the UNECE standards. Such an agree- and nectarines, pears, table grapes, ment provides the biggest chances to avoid a strawberries, sweet peppers and tomatoes piecemeal of different (private) requirements. remain in force. These ten products cover But for sure and as already today, the trading 75 % of the intra-community trade. partners can define specific and deviating quality. 2. This regulation introduced a definition of “sound, fair and marketable quality” as From the point of view of control, most well as the specification of the country of simplification is achieved when it is strictly origin with the general marketing stand- following the risk analysis. Application of risk ard. analysis means that in areas of no or rather low risk no inspection takes place. 3. This regulation simplifies and rationalises the checking operation which leads to sig- One remark related to the special situation nificant reduction of administrative bur- in Germany: The German law on marketing den for inspection and customs services standards prohibits, giving the impression of and also facilitates the work of approved a legal quality class where such a class does exporters and importers. not exist. But as the EU regulation grants to traders the right to replace the general marketing standard by the UNECE standard, we are of the view that at least in these cases it is allowed to label a class in Germany.

Brügger the inspectors of the Laender, the industry all The fundamental rule of the German Fruit along the chain as well as the representatives Traders Association is since ever the free trade of the consumers. being restricted and prohibited by the lowest number of legal provisions. This is in line with Nemeth the words of Ms Henning “It does not belong The Hungarian statement was always clear to the governmental tasks to establish stand- and throughout the whole process of the ards.” The Commission did regulate very European fruit and vegetable reform always much with the regulation from 1996. Now the same. We want to assure QUALITY. We most of it is being deleted, other parts are not welcome the idea of the EU, to define the touched or is going to be amended. These quality through a green paper. Most of the amendments and deletions reveal a number items addressed in the green paper can only of legal questions. The Commission made be regulated on a product specific basis. It is it relatively easy for itself in withdrawing not possible to have the same definition of administrative tasks. But the industry must be quality for milk, wine or fruit and vegetables. able to do that what they did during the last Here our most important arguments related years in the future too. The consumers wish to the new regulation: market segmentation and quality segmentation. • almost all the products are covered by the new regulation,but not in a product Schmitz specific way (only by general standard) The marketing standards were, are and will be important because of two – as I think – • importance of country of origin increased good reasons. First, they protect the consum- (labelling of country of origin is com- ers to receive legally bad quality for good pulsory for almost each product), but money. Second, they provide a trading lan- implementation of this rule is not exactly guage – which means traders know what they defined (it is enough to label country of get although they can today no longer check origin or does that mean documentary visually the quality before dispatch. The check) withdrawal of a great number of marketing standards – without any substitute – cannot • general standard as a rule seems to be be the last decision. The industry is prepared simplified, but doesn’t answer all ques- to talk to all partners of the net product chain tions from an inspection point of view and specify which standards would fulfil the (can be commercialized (examples: as- criteria – consumer protection and facilita- paragus, leeks, mushrooms)) tion of trade. • general standard can be replaced by UN/ We accept the UNECE standards unquali- ECE standards but not private standards - fied and new standards for a few additional what does it mean in practice (e.g. in case products or product groups support this deci- of labelling of class third countries will sion. If this possibility would not exist, the big apply and member states may be or not)? retailers in Germany and the neighbouring countries would have to develop those prod- • number of regulations decreased radi- uct specific profiles that would have to be met cally but it is not assured the product by the suppliers on a client basis. specific approach. The horizontal ap- We have already painful experience with proach contradicts to a basic legal princi- maximum pesticide residue levels being ple namely the ‘lex specialis’. This means fixed on a company basis – where each com- that in case of quality reform of fruit and pany applies levels different from the legal vegetables the product specific standards maximum levels. This may and must not be should not be withdrawn. They were used repeated with marketing standards. The re- from the first part of the last century. They tailers are very positive on the UNECE stand- functioned well and there was no sense in ards. Therefore, we count on a commitment changing them. to these standards meeting the above mentioned purposes and that this decision proc- • the focus has been put on fruit and veg- ess will be supported by the ministry, the BLE, etables sector and its quality, but com-

munication emphasized too much the My only concern would be that the new regu- reducing of number of standards. But the lation could include a relatively big number essence of the reform was the extension of occasions to avoid the provisions. To think of application of quality inspection. We of exemptions such as kitchen ready produce, think that neither the industry nor the ready to eat produce, produce destined to inspection bodies are ready to implement. processing. Perhaps I am to much critical, but I am afraid that a big volume of fruit and • The hope that products will be cheaper vegetables being rubbish and not suitable for (by commercialisation of aesthetically marketing will come legally on the market non conform fruit and vegetables), but by using these options. Think of a carrot or interpretation of esthetical non-conform- any produce that can be eaten as such. Isn’t it ity is quite difficult. Crooked cucumber ready for consumption? Isn’t the orange des- could be marketed legally according to tined for juice making destined for process- the standards so far. While the permissi- ing – at home? I am afraid we produce quite a ble class III had been in force there was no number of black holes. example for the application of this provision. By now the tolerance of class II of the Sutor standards mandatory allows the trade all Looking at the federal law, it is hardly to un- products fit for consumption. derstand that the check of a class following a UNECE standard should be part of the task of Sutor food inspection. There is an obvious agreement, that marketing standards are essential fort he well func- It is the question, whether the simplification tioning of the markets. To my observation, is really a simplification or whether through the general marketing standard will have its the backdoor the potential of inspection as advantage or role in regional markets and for been distinctly increased. Moreover, it is the vegetables. The standards have their function question whether the offer in trade will be for consumer protection and a certain market worse thanks to the new regulation. transparency. The latter one is important for a good quality, good value and efficient sup- Valentin ply of the consumers. The reduction of the number of specific standards is a simplification. Regarding the Ahlers (UNIVEG, DE) general marketing standard and the link to The new regulation does not really mean a the UNECE standards it’s a freedom, because simplification for trade or its partners. We the trader will have the freedom to choose to loose 26 standards and gain another 50. It sets use the general marketing standard or to use me – a jurist – thinking how easy in Germany the UNECE standard. So we have simplifica- the article 5 of the German Law on Commer- tion and freedom. Regarding the labelling of cial Quality Standards is ignored. The article 5 kitchen ready, ready for consumption it is also of this law has a rather clear message and was simplification, because in this case the prod- always understood as a standard of protec- uct is exempted from the general marketing tion. standard. However, the traders have to follow This law excluded all labelling coming close the hygiene law which is quite important to to the indication of a class and could be taken protect the consumer. as a misleading labelling. It was easy to come into conflict with this law. Henning Now it is the question, whether it is a matter Concerning the Law on Commercial Quality of fairness that this article 5 is withdrawn. In Standards, the following applies: EU law is that case the German trade would have the overruling national law. In case the EC regu- same chances as their colleagues in the other lation allows trade to apply the UNECE stand- member states. ards, there must be conformity in all aspects We receive radishes labelled Class I from (minimum requirements, classification, other member states, but we are not allowed sizing, presentation, labelling). The labelling to label German radishes accordingly. A with- with a UNECE class is permitted because of EC drawal would contribute to harmonisation. regulation. This is not in contradiction with the Law on Commercial Quality Standards. At

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 – Panel discussion – 74 the moment, this interpretation is checked by spect of these standards on all levels of mar- the legal service. In case they would come to keting has been deleted too. This will be less a different interpretation, the Law on Com- consumer protection than until now. mercial Quality Standards would have to be amended. It cannot be that we simplify the The UNECE standards in their actual version market by European law and this develop- are mainly identical with the 26 deleted mar- ment would be get round through the Law on keting standards. On medium-term, it will Commercial Quality Standards. be useful to simplify and purify the UNECE standards. By the way, this was traders’ wish It is always said, that we deleted 26 EC mar- for the EC marketing standards already. keting standards and introduce 50 UNECE standards. This is not the case. Through the Ecsedi new EC regulation the UNECE standards do When Hungary joined the EU; there was a big not become EC marketing standards. The campaign about loosing our national food option for application does not automatically called “letcho” which is made of sweet pep- generate an obligation for inspection. It has pers, tomatoes and onion. Usually people use to be checked whether the general marketing sweet peppers of the lowest quality for this standard is respected or not. There is no fur- dish. There were rumours that you can not ther need for inspection, in case the general find it anymore on the market. But by intro- marketing standard is respected. The UNECE ducing the Class I for these sweet peppers, the standard is only checked, in case the general low price stayed the same and the quality of marketing standard is not respected and the the sweet peppers increased. trader says the UNECE standard was applied. In case a produce is labelled Class I and it does Regarding the UNECE standards, I would like not respect this class or it is assumed that to remind everybody that we are actually it does not respect this class, a punishment members of these international bodies like must be based on misleading the consumer UNECE, OECD and Codex ALimentarius. There pursuant to the food and feed law. we have commitments from the membership. Once you are the member of these interna- Brügger tional organisations, you should apply their standards. There is an interesting question We support the application of the UNECE on how UNECE will react on applying their standards. But a number of legal questions standards only partly as is the case with the must be solved. The Commission made it general marketing standard. relatively easy for itself. The simplification as claimed is not correct if we calculate. Before, Let’s not forget that fruit and vegetables be- we did have 26 specific standards. Now we long to food. In the general food law you have have 26 by 3 options: the general market- provisions. The specific marketing standards ing standard, the marketing with the label- are the parallel counterpart of the general ling “intended for processing” or the UNECE food law. The Verkehrsbezeichnung pursuant standard. Moreover, labelling the class in case to the food law has its equivalent in the label- of produce graded pursuant to the UNECE ling of the variety or commercial type in the standard is not obligatory – by these two marketing standards. The country of origin options we have additional 100 options. To signifies the expected quality and food safety. respect a standard is not a problem for trade. In the food law, this is among other things the The problem is the inspection or better to say basis for traceability. the impossibility to have fair inspections in The minimum requirements are included Germany or the EU. We expect restraints to in the food law too, as it says that food not trade and legal problems. It is the Commis- being suitable for consumption is not safe. sion’s duty to work over and to realise a real The equivalent in the marketing standards simplification and harmonisation in the EU is “produce not suitable for consumption is excluded from being marketed.” A clas- Schmitz sification is not only developed for fruit and With the respect of standards nothing will vegetables but for meat too. The provisions change. We can regret that with the deletion on marking are vertical in case of marketing of standards the obligation to check the re- standards, but horizontal in case of the food

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 – Panel discussion – 75 law. With regard to the food law, the provi- Today, the industry conducts the concept sions on marking can be horizontal as the “improve the quality each day and meet the indications are the same for canned tomatoes expectations of the consumers”. In interna- as for canned pineapples. While in case of tional trade the big supermarket chains speak the marketing standards these horizontal on behalf of the consumers. Sometimes the provisions must be broken down vertically private standards, especially the standards of or product specific. The general marketing the supermarket chains have an effect as bar- standard cannot fulfil the specification of so riers to trade. many produce. First the GAP system, nowadays we have the company specific GAP systems. The latest Sutor invention of the supermarkets is the CO2- These remarks can be completed by the footprints or maximum pesticide residue lev- astonishment of the Bavarian inspection els below the legal ones. We call for harmo- service when we realised that all provisions nisation, transparency and fair trade. In this on marking but the country of origin were context the UNECE standards are good aids. deleted. It is true that the deleted provisions The minimum standards must be accepted on marking are included in the food law – but by all partners and be based on scientific and for pre-packages only. In case of fruit and technical aspects. vegetables it would be important that the transport packages – especially in case of pro- Schmitz duce packed loose in the package – would be We stand for free circulation of goods, liber- labelled accordingly. We see big problems for alised markets and harmonised regulations. inspection and difficulties to put through the There are no other regulations to better meet provisions of the marketing standards. these demands as the UNECE standards; they are harmonised world wide already today. The marketing standards defined the provi- The marketing standards of the EU have been sions for market access for small producers harmonised with the UNECE standards. By and not so well structured production re- introducing 26 or 50 UNECE standards no gions. What is the Commission’s idea related barriers to trade are established but the rules to market transparency and a well function- of the game become harmonised worldwide ing marketing cross the internal boarders for all marketing partners. Of course, a com- between member states in future? pany may on top of that require additional specifications. But the UNECE standards as Graaff (LK-NW, DE) the basis should guarantee a maximum of Is it possible that trade labels produce cov- common ground. ered by the general marketing standard in accordance with a private standard and a Valentin related class? By integration of the UNECE standards in EU regulations we guarantee the harmonisation. Henning Private standards exist since ever and the When the German commercial quality withdrawal of the specific marketing stand- classes for fruit and vegetables were deleted, ards will not increase their number. the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection did communicate an Woitke (Krawo, DE) interpretation saying that the labelling of The Commission did justify the withdrawal a private standard would be possible provid- of the marketing standards with the fact that ed the labelling does not give the impression no food would have to be outgraded and be of a legally defined class. This interpretation thrown away in future. After the discussion is still valid. related to the general marketing standard the contrary seems to be the case; the general Araya (FDF, CI) marketing standard may be stricter than the specific marketing standards of today. Moreo- Chile is not only a big fruit exporting country ver, the question is why have ten standards but a big food (wine, salmon etc.) exporting not been withdrawn? country too. Our country pursues free trade policy since many years.

Graaff the deletion of specific marketing standards. For whom the general marketing standard For many products being marketed region- was developed? Is this simplification for ally, the price must be high otherwise a pro- trade, for consumers or for the Commission? duction is no longer possible. The producers How to apply the general marketing stand- cannot live from marketing cheep products ard – closely linked to the standards existing – on the long run. today or as strict as presented by the BLE? We must learn to live and to apply the new regulation. I would like to ask the members of Strissel (Landgard) this panel: What must happen that the new Private standards – as the Landgard stand- regulation can be applied positively and the ards – have been developed to improve and acknowledged reform can be effective in a to widen the offer – even for the lowest price positive way? segment. The reform of the regulation did not take into account the product specific Henning requirements. This will lead to massive ir- The most important task of the BMELV is the ritations in trade if there is no harmonisation adaptation of the national regulation related with the UNECE standards. to area of responsibility and infringements. The preparation has started and should be Valentin timely concluded before 1 July 2009. The next The ten specific marketing standards cover important task is the clarification related to 75 % of the intra-community trade, which is the law on commercial quality classes and the the biggest part of the market. Fact is that the UNECE standards or labelling. We’ll clarify general marketing standards is a simplifica- this urgently. tion for the trade. Brügger With the new provisions it will be possible to We should work towards the application of market crooked, deformed cucumbers that UNECE standards in German and European have not been marketable before and had to trade. The labelling of classes and the inter- be destroyed. Especially in this economic cri- pretation of the general marketing standard sis, the increased choice is an advantage for must absolutely be clarified within the next consumers. Traders have the choice to grade two months. The Commission should make cucumbers according to the general market- the uniform or harmonised interpretation/ ing standard or to the relevant UNECE stand- application to its main task – as this is he pur- ard. The general marketing standard does pose of a standard. not provide provisions for sizing – another simplification. Valentin With the general marketing standard we did Sutor introduce the definition for “sound, fair and The marketing of crooked cucumbers will marketable quality”. In future, the wrong find its limits where the shape defects are shape of a product will not prevent its com- due to development of seeds and hollowness. mercialisation provided it is “sound, fair and Those inferior products are – even for cheep marketable”. Thus the general marketing prices – unreasonable demands for the con- standard is a progress. As with all new regula- sumers. tion, we or better to say the member states Graaff need time to apply the new provisions. The Is it the task of the general marketing stand- Commission did release this new regula- ard that only products may be marketed that tion in order to provide simplification and are sound, intact and do not harm the con- freedom for trade and member states as they sumer? provide the choice between general marketing standard and UNECE standards. Sutor DIn the past, the application of marketing Schmitz standards has revealed an enormous increase We are facing the road ahead and we aks all in quality. It is not clear yet, whether the exist- – the trade partners, the ministries, the BLE, ing level of quality can be maintained after representatives of consumers and representa-

A final word concerning the crooked cucumbers, which have been quoted in the press – as they look so nice on the photos, it was always possible to market them based on the existing marketing standard. Those that would like to market big volumes of crooked cucumbers first have to find clients and a market for this product. In case those traders succeed, they will initiate a drop of prices that do not help anybody.

Nemeth We have to state, that after the quality reform a new economic situation has formed. The competition is under re-evaluation. It seems to be clear that to take part in competition needs at least clear rules, a court, a judge, start and finishing-line and well trained play- ers and not too much entry fee. We have a short term and a long term solution.

The short term solution is the mandatory application of the UNECE standards and application of OECD explanatory material in all Member States. The general standard should only be applied for products where UNECE standards do not exist. The date of application of the new regulation should be put in question. A more frequent and efficient discussion is necessary between the member states. The focus must be on inspection and uniform inspection practice. The outcome of the Green Paper discussion could be the reform of the reform.

The long term solution is the integrated inspection in the sense of a single national certification. At the same time this will be the cheapest solution for all partners of the market.

Sutor My cordial thanks to all of you that took part in this panel discussion. The big Han- delsströme are guided by the specific marketing standards. Areas that cannot be defined yet are guided by the UNECE standards. On a regional basis and for simple products the general marketing standard will be applied.

Quality production of pineapples in ACP countries Denis Felicite-Zulma

Trade Regulations

In 2007, Pineapple world production was During this period the 90’s regulation has about 18 millions tonnes. 12 countries repre- been put in place and specifically standards: senting 80% of the total production spread COLEACP took part in the Codex Alimentarius out between Central and South Americas Working Group since the beginning during (Brazil, Costa Rica), Asia (Thailand, Philip- the 90’s up to the adoption of the pineapple pines) and Africa (Nigeria, Kenya, Côte standard by the UNECE in 2003 . d’Ivoire) Regions. Importing Pineapple in Europe doesn’t Word trade today is about 2 millions tonnes. require a phytosanitary certificate but since During the 70’s the world imports of fresh 2000 a new EU regulation on Mrl’s for pesti- pineapple double in volume (160.000 t to cides has been applied. For certain country 365.000 t), then during the 80’s, the volume of supplies growers revised their technical less progressed (365.000 t to 586.000 t) then itinerary and adopted new practice for pesti- the growth became more important during cides. Particularly, ACP countries get the sup- the 90’s (917.000 t in 1997) and the million port from a COLEACP programme called PIP tonnes has been overtaken on 1999. (Pesticides Initiative Programme) since 2001 up 2008 funded by EU Commission. Countries producing a subtantial volume of pineapples are not key exporters (Brazil, Production China, Indonesia). Other countries (Costa Rica, Cameroon, Ghana) are exporting mostly For producing pineapple, the cycle is about 11 the total volume produced. to 15 months split in two phases :

The main import markets in the World are • Vegetative growth phase (8 to 10 months) EU-27 (42%), USA (32%) and Japan (8%), be- • Fruit and slip production phase (3 to 5 cause consumption market respectiviley (2.4 months) kg/year, 2.5 kg/year, 1.3 kg/year). Costa Rica is the leader among the main suppliers into EU The pineapple cultivation is unique because and USA. Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Cameroon flowering is induced artificially by man. in Africa are still among the main suppliers Floral induction enable planters to group of pineapples into Europe, but loosing their flowering and therefore the harvest in a field. market shares face to Costa Rica. The suc- As flowering is induced artificially, pineap- cess story of Costa started with a new variety ple can be grown and harvested all the year “Extra-Sweet” implemented by Dole. Their round. However fruit harvested during the marketing strengh on the international mar- rainy season can have some quality disavan- ket has contributed to this success. Between tages (high level of acidity, less color,...). 1997 and 2006, exports volumes increased almost by 4 times. Million tonne has been At this stage the choice of the right variety reached in 2006. is very important : Smooth Cayenne was the main variety exported to EU during many The pineapple imports into Europe increased years. New hybrid ‘Sweet’ varieties are devel- by 36% between 2005 and 2007. The main EU oping strongly with some advantages (better import countries are Belgium, The Nether- color, low acidity, hardiness in transport and lands and United Kingdom. These countries storage). Queen fruits (Victoria, Tahiti) are offer efficient logistics infrastructure giving well demanded by the markets and shipped to the operators opportunities to deal with mainly by air (bright colour and very fra- the other EU markets. grant).

The quality of the plant material (suckers) through their freshness, weight, homogenei-

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Quality production of pineapples in ACP countries 79 ty is one of the key factors in the success of the and the fruit weight (see foot note nr 7 page); crop. A good land preparation and absence of marking has to be followed. pests and disease are the key factor for a well- functionning plant roots. How COLEACP gives support to the ACP Nitrogen, Potasium and Magnesium are min- exporters on quality assurance aspects ? erals which will play a key role on the fruit quality (shape, lengh of the leaves, acidity, Set up by the European Union at the request sugar content, resistance and storage capaci- of the ACP Group of States, the Pesticides Initi- ties..) ative Programme, implemented by COLEACP has two overriding objectives: Floral induction is a key moment for the planter. Successful control of flowering is a • to enable ACP companies to comply with condition for the profitability of the farm. European food safety and traceability This operation is done 8 to 9 months after requirements; planting. • and to consolidate the position of small- Pre-harvest period needs to take care about scale producers in the ACP horticultural the fruit (11 to 12 months after planting) export sector

• Pineapple should be protected against Since 2001, the programme implemented 450 the Sunscald (the burn causes decolora- individual projects from 28 ACP countries, tion or at worst destruction of the skin and 100,000 smallholder family farms have been the pulp, deformation of the fruit, brown able to benefit from the Programme directly zones on the skin and translucent pulp). or via the exporters, 90% exports are covered by crop protocols conforming with the Euro- • Control of insect pests ( Augsome beetles, pean regulations and 80% of the flow of ACP Grasshopers, Crickets) exports have in effect adopted food safety risk management systems. • Degreening pineapple: pineapple colour is as strong factor in European consumers’ The activities of the PIP comprise four compo- decision to buy. The planter uses an artifi- nents: cial degreening: Ethephon (ethylene gen- erator). The harmonised Mrl for Ethephon • Good company practices (implementing is 2mg/kg and will be fixed by next July at a food safety management system, bring 0,5 mg/kg. This operation is done 10 days support to give the export companies as- before harvesting. sistance towards certification)

Harvesting consists to collect a fruit close to • Capacity building (having an access lo- its maturity (sweet, fragrant, well-coloured). cally to quality services, public services, I propose you to follow the different steps ac- tarde associations and task forces) cording to the Pineapple UNECE standards. • Regulation and standards (give to produc- Choosing a fruit according the size and shape ers the tools necessary to control the main of its crown (“Reducing” of the crown refers pests and diseases, as well as information to mechanical destruction of apical growing on authorised active substances and their point in the heart of the crow .....by means of a application, in due observance of GAP) gouge..). The fruit shoul be free of pests, damages leaves should be removed, the colora- • Information and communication (to pass tion will indicate the maturity stage. on the essential information accross to programme beneficiaries throught tools In the packhouse, trimming will to adjust the such as the Website, Magazine, E-Letter, peduncle (stem) length ; the ‘eyes’ of the fruit technical and training materials) should be filled according the variety ; the fruit should be free of internal browning, of pronounced blemishes ; sizing: fruit will be graded according a number of fruit per box

A training unit has been set up in order to cover the diversity of needs of beneficiaries. A range of tools and methodologies have been developed for different types of training courses :

• syllabuses on 8 mains theme (food safety, traceability, crop protections etc.) for technical managers and consultants

• training handbooks for trainers (brochures and demonstration materials) for employees and smallholders

• IT tools ( such as the “self-training” class- room included in the PIP tool box

The training unit develops a series of standard collective training courses and “in-house training service” adapted to the specific characteristics of each company.

Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection Franz Egerer, Mat Kersten, Heinrich Stevens

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 amended by ex 0910 thyme Regulation (EC) No 1221/2008 99 1211 basil (Ocimum basilicum), wild applicable from 1 July 2009 90 85 marjoram or oregano (Origanum Article 2a(1) vulgare), mint (Mentha spp.), sage (Salvia officinalis) Question 1 Which herbs are covered by the general mar- 1) pursuant to article 113a of Regulation (EC) keting standard? Is this standard applicable No 1234/2007 dried products are excluded for herbs in pots? from the marketing standards. TLL, Jena 2) vervain (Verbena spp.), rue (Ruta graveo- Answer lens), hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis) and borage Pursuant to annex I part IX of Regulation (EC) (Borago officinalis) are herbs that pursuant No 1234/2007 the following herbs are covered to the explanatory notes to the combined by the general marketing standard: nomenclature of the European Communities (OJ C 133 of 30.05.2008) explicitly fall under CN-Code Product 1) (fresh or chilled) code 1211 but pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 these herbs do not fall under the 0703 Leeks and other alliaceous vegeta- sector fruit and vegetables. 90 00 bles Chinese chives (Allium tuberosum), chi- The general marketing standard does cover ves (Allium schoenoprasum), Ramsons the herbs in pots destined for food. This defi- or wood garlic (Allium ursinum) nition is in line with the definition of “food” 0709 Chinese celery or cutting celery pursuant to article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 40 00 90 (Apium graveolens var. secalinum 178/2002 laying down the general principles Alef.) and requirements of food law, establishing 0709 other vegetables e. g. the European Food Safety Authority and 90 90 bee balm, lemon balm (Melissa offici- laying down procedures in matters of food nalis), chervil (Anthriscus cerefolium), safety. In this regulation “food” is defined as coriander (Coriandrum sativum), “plants after harvesting”. For herbs in pots various types of cress [e. g. garden cress destined for “food”, the harvest is – according (Lepidium sativum), watercress (Nastur- to the interpretation of BLE – the removal of tium officinale), winter cress (Barbarea the pots from their growing bed. verna), nasturtium or Indian cress (Tropaeolum majus)], dill (Anethum Herbs in pots destined for decoration graveolens), lemongrass (Cymbogopon or planting are covered by the CN code citratus), lovage (Levisticum officinale), 0602 90 30. This code is part of annex I part cultivated or sweet marjoram (Origa- XIII “Live trees and other plants, bulbs, roots num majorana), mugwort (Artemisia and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foli- vulgaris), oxalis (Oxalis crenata), parsley age” of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. (Petroselinum crispum), common purslain (Portulaca oleracea), rock Question 2 stonecrop (Sedum reflexum), rosemary Which produce can be labelled with a quality (Rosmarinus officinalis), salad burnet class from 1 July 2009? May products cov- (Sanguisorba minor), savory (Satureja ered by the general marketing standard be hortensis and Satureja montana), scur- labelled with class I, provided they meet the vygrass (Cochlearia officinalis), sorrel relevant UNECE standard? (Rumex acetosa), southernwood (Arte- Fruchthansa GmbH, Wesseling misia abrotanum), tarragon (Artemisia LAVES, Oldenburg dracunculus)

Answer sions of the UNECE standard (minimum re- For products covered by a specific marketing quirements, classification, sizing, tolerances, standard the grading in accordance with and presentation and marking) are met. To results the indication of the class is mandatory. are possible:

For products covered by the general market- • Provided the product is in conformity ing standard the grading with and labelling with the UNECE standard and the class of the class is allowed in conformity with the indicated, the product is regarded to be in UNECE standard available for the relevant conformity with the general standard. product. • In case the product is not in conformity In principle, a labelling in accordance with a with the UNECE standard and the class private standard is allowed too. But according indicated, the product is rejected because to German law, care must be taken that the of not meeting the general marketing labelling does not pretend a legal standard. standard.

Question 3 Question 5 Is it necessary to indicate “UNECE” in case of The product is in conformity with the general produce graded in accordance with a UNECE marketing standard provided the UNECE standard and labelled with a quality class? standard is met. What has to be done if the ADD, Neustadt Weinstraße product is labelled with a quality class but LAVES, Oldenburg there is no UNECE standard for the given product? Answer Is there a difference between products im- The UNECE standards require the obligatory ported from a third country and products indication of the class – without any suffix coming from a member state? such as “Class I – UNECE”. Moreover, such a TLL, Jena suffix is not required by article 2a of Regula- LANUV, Recklinghausen tion (EC) No 1580/2007. The mere indication “Class I” is sufficient. Answer The product can only be checked for con- Question 4 formity with the general marketing standard. In case the product is in conformity with the In case this conformity cannot be stated, the relevant UNECE standard, the product shall conformity with a private standard can not be be considered as conforming to the general accepted to regard the product as in conform- marketing standard. What is the legal basis ity with the general marketing standard. to punish products that are not in conformity with the class indicated and the UNECE This interpretation is valid for all products standard applied? irrespective of their origin. TLL, Jena Question 6 Answer Is it possible to indicate a quality class for The general marketing standard is legally products that are graded according to a binding. The inspection follows article 20 and private standard although a UNECE standard annex VI of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. exists? The punishment in case of rejection and LAVES, Oldenburg illegal marketing is based on the relevant national law. Answer Article 2a of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 The conformity with the general standard does not prohibit the application of private has to be checked first. In case the product is standards. However, there is no obligation to not in conformity with the general marketing apply UNECE standards. standard, the holder has the opportunity to show that the product is in conformity with In case of products covered by a specific the relevant UNECE standard. standard, the relevant specific marketing The inspector has to check whether all provi- standard must be respected.

The corresponding holds for products cov- many. Is it possible to re-pack these herbs in ered by the general marketing standard. Pri- Germany and to label the new package again vate standards going beyond these standards with a quality class? may be applied. LANUV, Recklinghausen

In case of German products and pursuant Answer to article 7 paragraph 1 of the German Law Fresh herbs are covered by the general mar- on Commercial Classes, any private stand- keting standard only. A UNECE standard does ard must not give the impression of being a not exist. Private standards are allowed. In legally binding one. Germany, any impression of a legally binding standard must be avoided in the labelling. There is no obligation to apply UNECE stand- However, it is taken for granted that products ards. By applying the relevant UNECE stand- labelled with a class have been put legally on ard it may be possible to eventually cure the market in other member states. Pursuant any violation against the general marketing to articles 28-30 those products are in free standard (see question 4). circulation in Germany. Question 7 Re-packed products in Germany and labelled Is it necessary or possible to inspect the with the address of the German packer are product against all provisions of the relevant covered by the German Law on Commercial standard, in case a product is labelled with a Classes. Care must be taken that the labelling quality class – in accordance with a UNECE or does not pretend a legal quality class. a private standard? LAVES, Oldenburg Article 3(1)a(ii)

Answer Question 9 Pursuant to article 2a of Regulation (EC) No Based on the exemption for “animal feed” it 1580/2007 the conformity with the UNECE will be possible to market carrots under the standard has to be checked in all aspects, in denomination “animal feed” at all stages of case the product is not in conformity with marketing, although these carrots are not the general standard and this infringement in conformity with the general marketing should be restored by conformity with the standard. Is this possible for broken aspara- UNECE standard. gus too?

In case the product is in conformity with LANUV, Recklinghausen the general marketing standard pursuant Answer to Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007, there is The exemption mentioned above is applica- no reason to check the conformity with the ble at all stages of marketing and for all prod- UNECE standard. Provided the inspector has ucts covered by marketing standards (general the respective competence, a check pursuant and specific). Thus it is applicable for broken to the Food Law (prevention of camouflage or asparagus too. deception) might be possible. In Germany this would be § 11 of the German Food and Feed However, pursuant to no 8 of annex II chapter Code. IX “Provisions for food” of Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 “Hazardous and/or inedible Private standards are not checked by govern- substances, including animal feed, are to be mental inspection bodies. In case of German adequately labelled and stored in separate products and pursuant to the German Law on and secure containers”. Commercial Classes, it is important that the labelling does not pretend the application Article 3(3) of a legally binding standard or mislead the consumer. Question 10 The member state may decide that products Question 8: that are not in conformity with the relevant Fresh herbs labelled with a quality class are specific standard may be offered at retail pro- dispatched from one member state to Ger-

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection 84 vided they are labelled “for processing”. Is it but graded and labelled in accordance with planned to apply this exemption in Germany? the relevant UNECE standard, the UNECE LAVES, Oldenburg class may be indicated optionally in the accompanying documents. It is recommended Answer that the indications in the accompanying In order to make this exemption applicable in documents are in accordance with the indica- Germany, the national regulation referring tions on the package. to the competition and punishment has to be amended. This amendment is prepared in Article 5 these days. Exemptions shall be provided for apples and pears. Question 13 At retail all products must be labelled clearly Article 4(3) visible. The retailer must indicate the country of origin for each product and the labelling Question 11 must not be misleading. In addition, prod- Is it allowed to offer fruit and vegetables ucts covered by a specific standard must be online without any indication of the quality labelled with the quality class and – where class in the order form? What are the rules appropriate – with the variety name. Is this concerning the reference to the marketing provision met when the original box is placed standards for online offers? at the point of sale and the consumers are able to read the indications from that box? TLL, Jena TLL, Jena Answer The information particulars shall be leg- Answer ible and conspicuous. In distance contracts At retail stage, the information particulars (online sale), the information particulars must be given “conspicious, adjacent, legible related to the products and their conformity and in such a way as not to mislead the con- with the standards must be available before sumer”. Provided these conditions to inform the purchase is concluded. In case of products the consumer are met through the labelling covered by a specific marketing standard and of the package and an appropriate presenta- pursuant to article 4(4), the product description of the package, an additional labelling tion and the order form must include the on a note next to the product or on the shelf is product, the class, the country of origin and not required. eventually the variety, the commercial type and the size. In case the product is covered by It should be noted that mandatory indica- the general marketing standard, the indications such as basic price and eventually the tion of the country of origin is sufficient. price of the package have to be indicated in connection with the product. Article 4(4) Question 14 Question 12 Is it necessary or possible at retail stage to ask The country of origin must be indicated in for the labelling (on the shelf or a notice next the accompanying documents. Is this a must to the product) of the preserving agent in case for products originating in third countries as of citrus fruit not offered in a pre-pack? well as for products originating in member TLL, Jena states? Is it necessary to indicate the quality class even in case of a UNECE standard ap- Answer plied on a voluntary basis? The indication of conserving agents is required on the package pursuant to the specif- LANUV, Recklinghausen ic marketing standard for citrus fruit. Pursu- Answer ant to article 9 of the German Regulation on In the accompanying documents, the class the Permission of Additives it is mandatory to has to be indicated provided the product is indicate the preserving agent on a note close covered by a specific standard. For products to the product in case of products that are not covered by the general marketing standard pre-packed.

Question 15 addition to all information provided for in the Products covered by the general marketing marketing standards. Who defines the gen- standard must be labelled with the country eral view whether a product is sold by count of origin only. Provided the product is offered or by weight? in pre-packages, these must be labelled with TLL, Jena name and address of the producer, dispatcher or seller. In these cases the directive 2000/13/ Answer EC or the German Regulation on the Label- Pursuant to article 5 paragraph 2 of Regula- ling of Foodstuffs apply. For products offered tion (EC) No 1580/2007, the sale by weight is in open packages such as 5 kg cartons these the rule. In case of sale by count, the seller has indications are not stipulated. Is it possible to prove that this follows the general view. to ask for these indications in application of This can happen through the statement by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002? the agricultural chambers and the economic TLL, Jena associations. Furthermore, based on a hear- ing of the industry, the Laender can list the Answer relevant products in their administrative pro- Directive 2000/13/EC has a general character visions on inspection. In the end, the courts and applies to all foodstuff put on the market, have to decide. provided no exceptions are granted. Direc- tive 2000/13/EC does itself provide for specific Question 17 exceptions for the fruit and vegetable sector Table grapes from overseas are delivered in as regards the ingredients to be listed and the bulk in small plastic bags. The intention of best before date (not applicable to fruit and these open bags is protection of the product vegetables that have not been peeled, cut, or – although being equipped with a zip-lock. similarly treated). However, the other provi- At retail, the contents of these bags – with sions of Directive 2000/13/EC do apply, unless or without zip-lock – are regularly changed no exceptions are provided for by specific by consumers. The real purpose of the zip- fruit and vegetable legislation. lock is that the consumer may close the bag when buying the product and to optimise Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 the handling at the point of sale. We take the refers to Directive 2000/13/EC, but does not view that these bags are sales packages but constitute a general opt-out from the Direc- not pre-packs – referring to Article 6 para- tive. As a result, pre-packed fruit covered by graph 1 of the German Law on Weights and the fruit and vegetable sector must meet the Measures which states: “For the purpose of general or specific marketing standards and this law, pre-packs are packages of any type the provisions of Directive 2000/13/EC as far that are packed and closed in the absence as they do apply to the fruit and vegetable of the buyer. The content can not be altered sector, in this case the obligation to indicate without opening or noticeably changing the the name and address of the manufacturer package.” Thus, it is not necessary to label or packer, or of a seller established within these bags in accordance with the marketing the Community, pursuant to article 3 (1) (7) of standards. 2000/13/EC. DFHV, Bonn Remark: With these provisions, the labelling of the packages defined by no 1.1 in annex VI is not appropriate for a proper identification of the package or lot. Anyhow, it seems to be impossible to require the indication of name and address of the packer and/or dispatcher pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.

Question 16 For pre-packed products pursuant to article 5 the net weight or the count (in case of products sold by count) shall be indicated in

Answer Examples: First of all it has to be stated, that the definition of pre-packs in the German Law on Content of the Labelling Allowed? Weights and Measures slightly differs from package the Directive 2000/13/EC and annex VI no 1.2a Tomatoes from the Tomatoes– yes of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007. Both, the Netherlands + Netherlands EC directive and the regulation, use the term Cucumbers from Cucumbers – “changing”, while the German law uses the Germany Germany term “noticeably changing”. “Vegetables from For conformity checks pursuant to Regula- Lower Rhine” tion (EC) No 1580/2007, the definition of an- Tomatoes from the Mix of EC vegetables yes nex VI is binding. Netherlands + Cucumbers from “Vegetables from Products offered at retail stage in closed zi- Germany Lower Rhine” plock bags have to be regarded as pre-packs. Tomatoes from the Mix of EC vegetables no Traders that do not want to use and label zi- Netherlands + plock bags as pre-packs should take care that Cucumbers from “Vegetables from these ziplock bags are offered clearly open. Spain Lower Rhine” Article 6 Question 18a What would be the correct labelling for Question 18 mixed packages of fresh herbs, when the Is it allowed to indicate all countries of origin different herbs have different countries of in case of packages containing mixtures of origin: in summer it is Germany and in winter species of fruit and vegetables originating in Germany and EC member states and/or third different countries of origin or is the indica- countries? tion “mix of EC fruit and vegetables” mandatory? Is it allowed to indicate the growing Answer region such as “from Lake Constance” or For the mixes mentioned above, the following “Rhineland”? options for labelling the country of origin is TLL, Jena possible.

Answer All herbs are from Germany The indication of the country or the countries Labelling: “Mix of German herbs” of origins is mandatory for mixed packages. In the case where the mixed packages contain The herbs are from Germany and at least one products from more than one member state EC member state or third country, it is possible to replace the Labelling: “Mix of EC herbs” indication of each country of origin by the All herbs are from at least two EC member summarizing and more general indications states provided for by article 6. The indication of Labelling: “Mix of EC herbs” a region of growing is optional and may be given in addition to the country of origin but The herbs are from Germany and at least one must not be such as to mislead. third country Labelling: “Mix of EC and non-EC herbs”

All herbs are from at least two third countries Labelling: “Mix of non-EC herbs”

The labelling “herbs from Germany and EC countries” is not allowed. This type of labelling promotes one country without specify- ing which herb(s) originate in this country.

Thus the labelling is misleading. The decep- Answer tion may be prevented by indicating the In case the “giving away for free” is part of a country of origin next to the type or species business, i. e. in connection with trade opera- packed in the mix. tions or service, this is “marketing them in any other manner” and the marketing stand- Question 19 ards have to be respected. Pursuant to article 6(3) sales packages may contain mixes of species of fruit and veg- Article 10 etables originating in different countries of origin. In these cases it is allowed to replace Question 21 the indication of the different countries of origin by the indication of “mix of EC fruit In case of products covered by the general and vegetables”, “mix of non-EC fruit and marketing standard and based on a risk vegetables” or “mix of EC and non-EC fruit analysis, the member state may choose not and vegetables”. Is it correct that this simpli- to carry out selective checks. Is it planned to fied labelling cannot be applied when the apply this exemption on a general basis in accompanying documents are completed in Germany? accordance with article 4(4) and that in the LAVES, Oldenburg accompanying documents the countries of origin must be stated? Answer DFHV, Bonn This provision is part of the risk analysis. Each member state must establish rules for risk Answer analysis covering all products of annex I part The indication of the country of origin in the IX of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. These accompanying documents is mandatory for rules have to be applied by the inspection the mixes too. The country of origin has to services of the member states and may locally be indicated, in case all components of the reveal different results as to the traders, lots mix originate in the same country. In case and/or quantities to be inspected. the components have their origin in different countries, the regulation provides two op- In the frame of the risk analysis a minimum tions to indicate the country of origin: either of traders, lots and/or quantities for inspec- the indication of each country of origin or the tion has to be defined for each risk category indication “mix of EC fruit and vegetables” (including those with the lowest risk) for etc. As the latter is explicitly authorised, this products covered by the specific marketing authorisation is allowed in the accompanying standards. Contrary to this, the number of documents too. In the interest of clarity, the inspections can be fixed at zero in case of information particulars in the accompanying products covered by the general market- documents and on the package should cor- ing standard. In these cases the risk analysis respond. should provide special rules that allow or require from time to time checking whether Article 9 this zero-inspection is still appropriate. Warn- ings from other inspection services or con- Question 20 sumer complaints could initiate those checks. The trader database lists traders involved in the marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables Article 12 holding produce with a view to displaying or offering them for sale, selling them, or mar- Question 22 keting them in any other manner. Does the Which products fall under the conformity term “marketing them in any other manner” checks at import stage after 1 July 2009? Will include “to give”? Would it be allowed to give only products covered by a specific marketing products being not in conformity with the standard be checked or products covered by (general or specific) marketing standards, e. the general marketing standard as well? Will g. to give them at a booth on the road or dur- all products be checked at export stage? ing a bus ride? Fruchthansa GmbH, Wesseling ADD, Neustadt a. Weinstraße TLL, Jena

Answer proved third country is not valid and cannot At import and export, for products covered by be regarded as a factor reducing the risk of the general or specific marketing standards non-conformity. the selective checks based on risk analysis apply. Therefore, the risk analysis determines Article 20 whether a product or lot has to be inspected. The higher the reliability regarding conform- Question 24 ity with the standards is, the lower the per- May an inspector for products graded in centage of inspections must be, provided no accordance with a UNECE standard but not minimum quota has been fixed. meeting this standard prohibit the marketing of this product? Is it possible, in these cases, For products destined for industrial process- to apply a proceeding of administrative of- ing, the risk is related to the fact that the (not fence? in conformity) product might be illegally LAVES, Oldenburg marketed on the fresh market. To avoid or minimise this risk, it would be possible to Answer carry out identity checks. For products of low The provisions on inspection apply for all risk a waiver should be issued. products covered by the general or specific marketing standards. A produce that neither Article 13 conforms to the general standard nor to the relevant UNECE standard can be banned with Question 23 a “stop moving” notice. In case those products According to paragraph 1, the EC Commissio are illegally marketed, this is regarded as an n may approve third countries performing administrative offence. conformity checks to specific marketing standards prior to the import into the Com- Products conforming to the general mar- munity. Does this approval hold for specific keting standard but not conforming to the marketing standards only? UNECE standard can only be checked pursuant to § 11 of the German Food and Feed Code What does this mean for products covered by prohibiting any “camouflage or deception”. the general marketing standard, like avocados or mangoes? Do these products have Annex VI a higher risk at import in the EU? Would in these cases article 10(1) subparagraph 2 apply Question 25 “The existence of such certificate shall be What is the “package” with respect to sam- considered as a factor reducing the risk of pling in whole sale: the carton or poolbox or non-conformity?” the sales package (consumer package) con- KCB, Den Haag tained in the carton? TLL, Jena Answer The German text of article 13 (1) is not in line Answer with other text versions. The approval is For sampling, the package is defined in related to the “conformity checks” in the Ger- section 1.1 of annex V of Regulation (EC) no man version and to the “specific marketing 1580/2007. standards” in the English, French and Dutch version. “1.1. Package: Individually packaged part of a lot, including contents so as to facilitate han- We assume that the approval is intended for dling and transport of a number of sales units the “specific marketing standards”. The Ger- or of products loose or arranged, in order to man text of the Regulation should then be prevent damage by physical handling and corrected accordingly. transport. Road, rail, ship and air containers are not considered as packages.” The risk analysis applies also to products covered by the general standard and originating By the way, the OECD Scheme is revising the in approved third countries. But in these cases provisions on sampling to better reflect the the conformity certificates issued by the ap- situation of pre-packed products.

Specific Marketing Standards General Marketing Standard

Apples Fresh Herbs

Question 26: Question 28 In the Netherlands apples from Japan have How to apply the general marketing standard been imported under the denomination of for herbs? grāpples®. The majority of fruits showed wa- TLL, Jena tercore on at least 50 % of the fruit surface. Do other member states have those imports too? Answer What measures have to be taken? Would it The general marketing standard covers cut be possible to grant an exemption within the herbs in bundles or loose in the package as standard and as a gentlemen agreement as well as herbs in pots. Only the minimum ma- long as the standard has not been amended turity requirements do not apply. accordingly? KCB, Den Haag Fennel

Answer: Question 29 Grapples® are apples that are soaked with Fennel is marketed with leaves cut. Are those grape juice by means of a special process. products regarded as “not intact” and to be The intention is that the taste of the apples excluded from the market? is like grape juice and that these apples are TLL, Jena then more attractive to children. The flesh of these apples is watersoaked. Through this Answer treatment, the grāpples® are no longer the Products being normally trimmed at primary product “apples” pursuant to annex their leaves are regarded as “intact” when I part IX of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and trimmed. Thus, in fennel the leaves and stalks fall under CN code 2008 99 99 (fruit, nuts and may be cut off or trimmed while the “trim- other edible parts of plants, otherwise pre- ming” or damaging of the base of the fennel pared or preserved, whether or not contain- is not allowed. ing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included) Freshness and are not covered by the specific marketing standard for apples. Question 30 How to assess products that are no longer Tomatoes fresh in appearance or wilted with respect to the general marketing standard? Question 27 TLL, Jena Are mixes of varieties or commercial types of tomatoes (e. g. red cherry tomatoes, yellow to- Answer matoes, red oval tomatoes, Kumato) allowed? Pursuant to the general standard, the condi- TLL, Jena tion of the products must be such as to enable them to withstand transport and handling Answer and to arrive in satisfactory condition at the The existing EC marketing standard as well as place of destination. A satisfactory condition the marketing standard valid after 1 July 2009 is given, if the edibility of the product is given do not allow these mixes. The UNECE stand- at the place of destination. ard for tomatoes does allow mixes of dis- tinctively different colour, varieties or com- UNECE Standards mercial types since November 2008. The EC Commission is prepared to harmonise their Cucumbers standards but the time frame is not known. Question 31 Is there a special definition of mini cucumbers or short cucumbers? Is it allowed to

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection 90 name a cucumber weighing more than 280 g ica virgifera Le Conte) in its territory and noti- (e. g. 350 g) a “short cucumber” or a “mini fied to the Commission in December 2008 cucumber”? that the organism had not been detected. TLL, Jena However and in accordance with the general Answer marketing standard, in melons damages The EC marketing standard for cucumbers caused by pests are allowed provided the (Regulation (EC) No 1677/88) does provide flesh is not affected. exemptions from the minimum sizes and the size ranges in the package for “short” and “mini cucumbers”. It does not provide for maximum size limits.

From 1 July 2009, cucumbers are covered by the general marketing standard that does not provide for a minimum size.

The UNECE standard for cucumbers was amended in November 2008 and the minimum size being deleted; the term “short cucumber” or “mini cucumber” was deleted too.

Melons

Question 32 During the inspection of yellow Canary melons from Spain, the fruits revealed defects looking like skin defects. But a careful check with a magnifier revealed pinches of an insect. The phytosanitary service expressed the suspicion that this might be caused by the Western corn rootworm. This pest has been found in pumpkins and is a real problem in the USA. Are defects known in melons caused by the Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera Le Conte)? TLL, Jena

Answer The actual chart of distribution of Diabrotica virgifera – published by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organiza- tion (www.eppo.org) – shows the following distribution: all over the country of Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia; observed over a wide area in Romania, Poland, Czech Republic, Aus- tria, Slovenia, Bosnia and Italy; small-area distribution in Germany (Bavaria and Baden- Wuerttemberg), Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and United Kingdom.

In accordance with article 2 of the Commis- sion Decision 2003/776 of 24 October 2003, Spain conducted official surveys for the presence of the Western corn rootworm (Diabrot-

How to crack quality problems by inspection Mat Kersten

Soiled produce – why this special attention? • by being transparent with an open To solve this problem: • by communication, especially when soiled produce will lead to rejection(s).

Consequences

The inspection bodies will execute a stricter assessment to soiling, where necessary.

It is preferred to do this at the source. Rejec- tion at import level leads to additional costs and receives less perception by growers, packers, or traders.

In the near future, growers and packing stations in countries of production must be informed. Moreover, soiling needs attention Marketing Standard during inspections. Co-operation between Part of every current marketing standard is inspection bodies is started on the basis of a the minimum requirement “clean, practically definition “what is out of grade” with respect free of any visible foreign matter”. After 1 July to “practically free of”. 2009 it will be part of the general and specific marketing standards.

Developments

Since September 2007, KCB became the competent quality inspection body for import and foreign (non-Holland) products as well as Dutch products. During import inspections, more than once, soiling was a reason to reject consignment(s). KCB will work strict and uniform in case of soiled produce. In January/February 2009, our impression In 2008, experiences of the inspection bod- was that there is made a step forward, be- ies of the Netherlands, the UK, Germany and cause: the general impression is that the Belgium were shared. Unanimous conclu- amount of soiled produce is decreasing. We sion: nearly the same experiences with soiled hope that this will continue. produce, hich need more attention.

Aim

We aim for a harmonisation on acceptable level and give a higher priority to soiled produce during inspection if necessary.

How to reach harmonisation?

• by sharin our experiences with the involved countries and inform them about our aim.

Summary

Solving this problem together;

Stimulate producers and traders for sending clean produce;

Define the acceptable limit for soiling;

Work in a good co-operation;

An evaluation in summer 2009.

Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection – panel discussion –

Participants: Mat Kersten, Jaime Camps Almeñiana, Ian Hewett Presentation: Dr. Ulrike Bickelmann

Camps Almiñana (SOIVRE, ES) in the most sensitive areas (the beginning In Spain the problem of soiled products is fair- of the season is a criterion of risk). ly known. In Almeria and Murcia, the areas most important for the production of toma- 3. Another is the “monitoring” of the expedi- toes and sweet peppers, we have heavy rains tions during these critical dates (till the during the growing season. In tunnels and end of October), getting information from greenhouses that are not completely closed the main markets at destination (consum- the products are soiled because of spattering er markets). This information is obtained rain water. Most of producers grade and pack by the Commercial Offices of the Spanish their own products and sell them through the Embassies, both by a survey carried out to auctions. the importers and the retailers or through The marketed quantity is very high and it is direct observation in the market. very difficult to inspect all the quantity marketed in very short time. SOIVRE is the coor- 4. Finally, another source of information dinating authority in Spain, according to the comes from the non conformity notifica- (EC) Regulation 1580/2007 and responsible for tions sent by the Inspection Services that checking the conformity of fruits and vegeta- are responsible of the controls at desti- bles with their marketing standards, in for- nation. When SOIVRE (as co-ordinating eign trade. Based on the feed back of the KCB authority) receives one of these notifica- during the season 2008/2009, the SOIVRE had tions, pays a visit to the trader involved intensive contact to the producing areas, the so as to report the fact of non compliance local inspection services and – through the with the standard. Spanish missions – to the destination markets. This exchange of information helped to improve the situation clearly, although the Hewett (RPA, GB) problem has not yet been deleted completely. The market inspectors take soiling seriously. The inspectors are trained accordingly. It is SOIVRE has another problem in focus that very important that we are aware of the fact from the point of view of a producing country that the regulation says that the products should be treated with the same efforts. We need to be “practically free of foreign matter” are focusing the citrus fruit maturity require- – therefore, a small quantity of soiling is al- ments at the beginning of the season, mainly lowed. We do need to define what those lim- mandarins and oranges. Some producers its are. It is essential that in various interna- harvest too early to get best prices and thus tional fora we ensure that everyone agrees on impair the quality and the market. How do the acceptable levels whichever product we SOIVRE try? In order to prevent the immature are talking about. What is also essential after citrus fruit from being marketed, SOIVRE that is to ensure that when the inspectors see organises each year a set of measures: the defect the notification of non-conformity is completed and send back to the country of 1. From the 1st of September, maturity origin. We need to ensure that those noti- controls of fruits that are still on the tree fications of non-conformity go back to the are carried out. These controls take place product and hopefully through international in different growing areas and in co- fora again we attempt that those defects are operation with the Regional Inspection reduced in quantity. Services (that have the competence). This way SOIVRE does a follow up at origin and Kersten (KCB, NL) is aware and prepared to react quickly. The explanations of Mr. Camps and the sup- 2. Checks are increased according to the risk port of the SOIVRE have been very helpful. analysis, in the packing premises located But the impression should be avoided that the

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection – panel discussion – 94 soiled products are a Spanish problem – those What do traders think of such a concerted products are supplied by other countries too. action of inspection services in countries of This is a basic problem. origin and destination?

Bickelmann Ahlers (UNIVEG, DE) Cooperation is very essential. In addition to Two elements of this problem have been men- this and at least as important, the marketing tioned yet: 1) the soiled products are supplied standards must include practical require- by different countries and not only tomatoes ments. and sweet peppers are concerned but plums and table grapes and other products too. 2) Bickelmann Limits for “practically free of foreign matter” must be defined – eventually on a product by The marketing standards are not far from real product basis. In the past, we have not been life as they are elaborated between countries careful enough to define those limits when of production and of consumption and based we discussed soiling in international stand- on consultation with trade and product. But ard setting organisations. To elaborate this the interpretation – agreed in international definition in close contact with trade is our fora – allowing a practical application of the task for the future. standards should be better communicated to the industry. The explanatory brochures Secondly, a quality problem must be ad- of the OECD are good, but their content is no dressed from both ends: from the country of very well known. origin and from the country of destination. The initiative can – as with the soiled prod- Following the above mentioned example of a ucts – come from the country of destination concerted action referring to the ripeness of or – as with the ripeness of citrus fruits – from citrus fruits, the limits allowed as well as all the country of origin. Provided both ends of information on unripe and degreened citrus this chain use the same measure and inspect fruits could be published in the press – e.g. based on risk analysis, an improvement will the FRUCHTHANDEL in Germany. Does such take place. a possibility exist in other member states too or should this information be communicated A third aspect should not be neglected. The through the trade associations? respect of the marketing standards is not the duty of the inspection services in the firs Hewett place, but that of the owner of the product. The OECD have published the documentation Thus, the problems or risks related to the with the information in. But certainly from respect of marketing standards must be com- our traders’ perspective it is nto the docu- municated to the industry. ments that are regularly used and so I think Concerted actions – as on the example of another format – in trade press for example soiled sweet peppers and tomatoes – are – would be a very useful way of getting the successful as they communicate in all direc- information out to people. tions. In case of unripe citrus fruits, such a concerted action could help as well. The Sutor (LfL, DE) countries of origin and destination must From the point of view of an inspection serv- cooperate in times of high risk and they must ice the problem of soiling must be differenti- include the industry. Such a project will be ated. Neither dust nor chalk do not impair successful, provided the national inspection the quality. But the visible pesticide residues bodies along the trade chain increase their may impair the taste of products. The Bavar- inspection activities in times of high risk and ian inspection service does exclude those the trade respect the criteria for minimum products from marketing. Such a lot can only ripeness when doing their orders and check be allowed for marketing provided the trader these criteria when receiving the product. can prove that the pesticide residues respect The result will not only be the respect of mar- the maximum level allowed. It is the duty keting standards but markets supplied with of the supplying countries to stop pesticide ripe and well tasting products. residues. Unripe fruits are less critical as they

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection – panel discussion – 95 do not impair health of consumers, but they task of the laboratories and does not concern must be stopped from being marketed. It is the quality that we are dealing with today. noticeable, that the packers are informed We know that any soiling is unacceptable within a few minutes after rejection of a as we do not know whether it is poisonous non-conform product. The non conformity or not. With respect to the feed back related protocol is written down and directly send by to rejections, the inspection authorities can fax to the packer. But of course, the inspection rely on the power of the industry and their services are challenged too – in the worst case internal organisation. You can be sure that the season or marketable volume must be the feed back because of quality problems are limited. communicated within the trade channel very quickly and with very drastic consequences. Bickelmann It may be that the official feed back is miss- With respect of the difference between ing. This is something I could live with. But it “sound” and “not sound” soiling, I would like is important that the quality is guaranteed or to share with you the results of researches even improved. of the Belgian inspection service. For a certain period of time, the colleagues did take Jakobs (CONJAGO, DE) samples of soiled produce. They assessed the defect visually and did send the samples to a From the point of view of a former regional laboratory afterwards. inspector, I would like to support the govern- The results have been surprisingly, as prod- mental inspection. If all inspection bodies ucts classified as soiled by mere dust did in Germany and – may be in the EU – agree reveal pesticide residues. Products classified and push the standards through as they are – as soiled by the carrier material of pesticides then it is possible to achieve much more than turned out to be soiled by dust. Knowing this, today. we should have a look to the marketing standards. These standards do not address the pes- Dr. Sutor, I regret your view of ripeness is less ticide residues but the visible foreign matter. important than soiling in table grapes. In The standards address hygienic perfect food. case a producing country requests the sup- In this context the type of foreign matter – port of destination countries to address a may it be dust, chalk, carrier of a pesticide or quality problem, this must be respected and others – is irrelevant. measures be supported. If we do not face the problem pointed out by Mr Camps then With respect to communication, it is clear we’ll have very sour, unripe and awful tasting that the supplier is informed quickly. But citrus fruits on the German market. To reject does this information reach the inspection those fruits demands a solid backbone. Those bodies of the supplying countries as quickly? rejections are apeased with the remark that Especially with regard to risk analysis, these the defect is not damaging to health. But this official feed back is very important. is not the point. Marketing standards should not be mixed up with residue analysis. These Sutor are two separate legal matters and both have To reject a truck load of 70,000 € to 80,000 € to be respected. because of soiling is not easy to get through this decision. In this case, we have a very prag- Felicite-Zulma (COLEACP, FR) matic approach. We have to take into account Information is very important. This is why the type of produce. In case of celeriac, root organisations like COLEACP and the organi- vegetables and potatoes, the soiling due to sation (FDF) of Mr Araya in Chile are quite dust is disinfecting and quality protecting. To important. The dialog between the authori- wash the produce does not always contribute ties and the private sector is important. That to the overall quality. is why COLEACP through the SIP programme, a private-public platform where all this kind Ahlers of problem can be discussed. If there is a It is quite sure, that the inspector has to rely problem – related to hygiene or whatsoever – on the macroscopic aspect when dealing with it need to be tackled rapidly. COLEACP is very dust or dirt. All other differentiation is the cautious on that and we put all our efforts on

© BLE, IAT - 2009 Questions regarding marketing standards and inspection – panel discussion – 96 that aspect to be sure that information will It is not possible to completely disconnect the go back very quickly to the country of origin market quality, the product quality and the and the authorities. Public and private sector process quality from the private quality assur- together work rapidly on the programme for ance systems. solving it. We have a very close communication to the EU – e.g. if products from ACP Ataş (DTM, TR) countries exceed the maximum levels of pesticide residues. To tackle the problem to- In Turkey, the minister of agriculture the pro- gether and to solve it is a question of money. duction from seedling to harvest since 2004. There is no point for an exporter to continue A few producers are certified. In this context to sell big and high value shipments if there is it should be possible to address the problem any problem on that and this problem has not of soiled products. been solved. Bickelmann - Summary LaFond (USDA, US) Finally, the quality assurance systems impose In the US, we address the issue of soiling dif- themselves as an additional element in the ferently. We look at the type of production frequently challenged communication be- – in tomatoes we make a difference between tween industry and inspection bodies. These open air and greenhouse production. We are systems could be one place where quality more lenient by open field ripened tomatoes requirements and marketing standards are than greenhouse tomatoes. Moreover, we pushed through. take into consideration whether the products has been washed. In almost every case, citrus This panel discussion has revealed three fruits are washed and waxed. elements that could support solving quality If the soil might be on the wax layer, we know problems: well it is dust collected somewhere. Or if the dust is below the wax, we know it is not 1. The marketing standards define the re- washed properly. quirements related to quality. The appli- Pineapples are prune to have dust particles cation of these standards must be agreed stuck in the crown. In this case, we recom- internationally. These definitions must be mend cutting of the crown. Products from communicated largely. Florida or the Caribbean may be soiled through sand from the Sahara, especially 2. The industry is responsible respecting the before the hurricane season. If the fruit is not marketing standards. They could inte- washable, then we advise even to use a dump grate easily this task in their quality assur- sponge or cloth and wipe it out before it is ance systems. The governmental inspec- shipped. In products like onions, potatoes tion does support the pushing through of and sweet potatoes, you expect to get a little the marketing standards. dirt. We look at that and we try to work with the producers and exporters to minimise it. 3. In case of quality problems communication is the key to success. The problem Sutor must be communicated from the inspection body to the producer. The inspection In this context it is more and more the ques- bodies at both ends of the marketing tion what is the role of quality assurance chain must communicate. Only when all systems such as EurepGAP and QS. Nearly parties are in the same boat, the control all fruit and vegetable trade is organised in can crack the quality problems and guar- at least one of these systems. The basic rules antee a good quality. of EurepGAP require that the standards and quality must be met. The quality assurance Let me express a warm thank you to all ex- systems would be the ideal fora to commu- perts on this panel expressing their point of nicate the message of quality between pro- view and to all experts in this hall reflecting ducer and consumer. The respect of market- and enriching the discussion from the prac- ing standards and the defined limits should tice. be part of the audits on the producer’s and trader’s side.

Speakers

Araya, Edmundo Fundacion para el Desarrollo Av. Pedro de Valdivia 0193 Fruticola Of. 22 (FDF) Providencia Santiago Chile / Chile Ataş, Neslihan Undersecretariat of The Prime DTM Bati Anadolu Bölge Mü- Ministry for Foreign Trade dürlügü Gazi Bulvari No:126 (DTM) K:3 Basmane-Konak 35230 Izmir Türkei / Turkey Bickelmann, Ulrike Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft Deichmanns Aue 29 und Ernährung 53179 Bonn (BLE) Deutschland / Germany

Brügger, Andreas Deutscher Fruchthandelsver- Schedestr. 11 band e.V. 53113 Bonn (DFHV) Deutschland / Germany

Camps Almiñana, Jaime General Secretariat of Foreign Paseo de la Castellana, nº 162. Trade. MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, Planta 7ª. Desp 14 TOURISM AND TRADE. 28046 Madrid (SOIVRE) Spanien / Spain

Codarin, Sandrine Centre Technique Interprofessi- BP 21 onnel des Fruits et Légumes 24130 Prigonrieux (Ctifl) Frankreich / France

Ecsedi, István Central Agricultural Office Budaörsi út 141-145. (CAO) 1118 Budapest Ungarn / Hungary

Egerer, Franz Bayerische Landesanstalt für Steingruber Strasse 10 Landwirtschaft 91746 Weidenbach (LfL) Deutschland / Germany

Felicite-Zulma, Denis Comité de Liaison Europe-Afri- 5 Rue de la Corberie que- Caraïbes-Pacifique Centra 342 (COLEACP) 94586 Rungis Cedex Frankreich / France

Fänger, Reinhild Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft Deichmanns Aue 29 und Ernährung 53179 Bonn (BLE) Deutschland / Germany

Henning, Christiane Bundesministerium für Ernäh- Rochusstr. 1 rung Landwirtschaft und Ver- 53123 Bonn braucherschutz Deutschland / Germany (BMELV)

Hewett, Ian Rural Payments Agency Room C401, Dukes Court, (RPA) Duke Street, GU21 5XR Woking Großbritannien / Great Britain

Kersten, Mat Qualitäts Kontroll Buro Platinaweg 10 (K.C.B.) 2544 EZ ‚s-Gravenhage Niederlande / Netherlands

Kornet, Gerrit Jan P8 Jupiter 470 2675 LX Honselersdijk Niederlande / Netherlands

Levin, Hans-Georg Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft Deichmanns Aue 29 und Ernährung 53179 Bonn (BLE) Deutschland / Germany

Malanitchev, Serguei Un Economic Commission for United Nations Europe Palais des Nations (UNECE) 1211 Geneva 10 Schweiz / Switzerland

Németh, Lajos Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Kossuth tér 11. Development 1055 Budapest (MARD) Ungarn / Hungary

Raddatz, Volker Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft Deichmanns Aue 29 und Ernährung 53179 Bonn (BLE) Deutschland / Germany

Schmitz, Karl BVEO - Bundesvereinigung der Adenauerallee 127 Erzeugerorganisationen Obst 53113 Bonn und Gemüse e.V. Deutschland / Germany

Stevens, Heinrich Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft Deichmanns Aue 29 und Ernährung 53179 Bonn (BLE) Deutschland / Germany

Sutor, Peter Bayerische Landesanstalt für Menzinger Strasse 54 Landwirtschaft 80638 München (LfL) Deutschland / Germany

Valentin, Sandrine European Commission Rue De La Loi 130 DG Agriculture and Rural De- 7/88 velopment 1049 BRUSSELS (EC) Belgien / Belgium

Zschammer, Andreas Bundessortenamt, Prüfstelle Torgauer Str. 100 Wurzen 4808 Wurzen (BSA) Deutschland / Germany