The top European Union court ruled late last year that certain organic U.S. products should not be eligible to use the EU “organic” logo if they’ve been fortified with vitamins or minerals. But EU officials provided no guidance to implement the decision, leaving U.S. organic exporters with questions about the ruling’s scope and casting doubt on an existing equivalency agreement.
The European Court of Justice sided with a European company in October that challenged a determination that the company could not use the EU organic logo because it had fortified its food supplement with vitamins and iron – a process not allowed under EU requirements. The company argued that the decision put it at a disadvantage relative to U.S. imports.
U.S. producers can fortify products and still use the USDA organic symbol. Under a 2012 organic equivalence agreement between the U.S. and the EU, U.S. exporters that receive the USDA organic label also receive the EU organic logo without additional certification.
Germany's Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH showed in court that organic U.S. exports to the EU that have been fortified can use an EU organic logo while domestic producers that fortify cannot.
An appeal for guidance
A summary of the ruling says that the EU organic label regulation, as it stands, is not sufficient to “dispel any ambiguity for the consumer.” But more than four months after the ruling, organic food representatives and legal analysts on both sides of the Atlantic tell Agri-Pulse that they are not sure where it leaves the equivalency agreement and what it means for U.S. organic exports.
Alexis Bramley, director of strategic projects at the U.S.-based Organic Trade Association, said it is not apparent how the EU will implement the ruling and which U.S. products will be prevented from using the EU organic logo. It's not certain whether the decision applies only to fortified products, to all products that have not met specific process requirements or all processed foods.
“There's a lot of legal analysis being done,” Bramley said. “Ultimately, it's going to be up to the EU Commission to decide on its interpretation and give that to the member states.”
USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service estimates that the EU organic market could be worth $50.4 billion and is poised for further growth. Organic U.S. sweet potato, fresh produce, dried fruit and nuts, specialty grain and processed food exporters have ample opportunities for market growth in the EU, according to an FAS report published earlier this month.
Losing access to the EU organic logo would be a significant blow to U.S. exporters that run afoul of the EU’s interpretation. European customers are primed to identify the EU organic logo, not the USDA logo. Only 2% of German consumers recognize a USDA organic logo; meanwhile, 50% recognize the EU’s organic seal, according to a 2024 OTA poll.
If the ruling leads to additional certification steps for other products, it could hurt U.S. competitiveness in the EU, Virginia Cesarini, Italy-based lawyer at Food Compliance International, which advises companies on food and nutrition regulations, told Agri-Pulse.
Virginia Cesarini (Food Compliance International photo)
The ECJ ruling is immediately binding in EU member states, but Cesarini said that she is not aware of any incidents where the EU has refused entry to U.S. products bearing the EU logo.
In such situations, Cesarini said, the European Commission often weighs in following an ECJ ruling and provides additional information for businesses on how officials are interpreting the decision. Cesarini said that this usually occurs within a year of the ruling.
An EU official told Agri-Pulse in an email that the commission intends to ensure the provisions as interpreted by the ECJ “are understood and applied uniformly all over the European Union in order not to create confusion on the markets and avoid trade disruption.” The official did not say when.
In addition to questions around the scope of products affected, Cesarini pointed out that she would also like to see greater clarity around whether products that are excluded from using the logo can use the word “organic” elsewhere on packaging.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
“It is not clear,” she said, whether a U.S. company that has not met all the EU organic process requirements could, for example, use the word “organic” next to the product name, or even include the word “organic” as an adjective at the end of an ingredient list to note organic inputs.
But U.S. exporters who want a narrow interpretation covering only fortified products could be disappointed. Both Cesarini and Chip English, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, a Washington law firm, see indications that the ECJ intended the scope of the ruling to go beyond fortification.
The summary judgment posted in October, Cesarini said, refers to “a more general principle applying to all organic foods” and a legal understanding that the organic logo should communicate “clear and unambiguous information to consumers.”
Similarly, English interpreted the summary as applying to more than just fortified products.
“If it is implemented as written by each country or by the EU Commission,” English said, U.S. organic food companies would “have to meet the actual [EU] requirements, not the equivalent requirements.”
Chip English (Davis Wright Tremaine photo)The commission official also stressed to Agri-Pulse in their email that the ruling “indeed applies to all imported products seeking an EU organic label … not just those that are fortified.”
The official addressed Cesarini’s concern, adding that only products fully compliant with EU organic processes could use “organic-related terms” on their packaging.
“The regulation prohibits not just ‘organic’ but all related terms,” the official said, “including derivatives and diminutives like ‘bio’ and ‘eco'.”
Back to ‘square one’
The organic equivalency agreement is set to expire in January 2027, according to USDA. With regulatory divergence created by the fortification ruling, as well as other EU regulatory updates since 2012, English argued that negotiations would have to begin from “square one.”
“This puts us in a place where both the EU and the United States are going to have to ask themselves, ‘Well, is this salvageable?’” English said.
Renewal of the equivalency agreement will require more regulatory alignment or agreement that variances are not sufficiently critical to require additional certification, he added.
“It's not impossible – the parties could find a way to bend each other's regulations so that you can get to the same place,” English said. “I think both the EU and the United States as trading partners would like to figure this out.”
Bramley said OTA has been in contact with both the FAS and the National Organic Program in the Agricultural Marketing Service about the issue.
A USDA official told Agri-Pulse that it is “working closely with the EU to ensure USDA-certified organic products have access to the EU market” and that the NOP is in touch with its EU counterparts "to better understand the potential impacts of the ruling and to ensure that market access continues.”
But English worries that the Trump administration’s newfound focus on reciprocity in U.S. trade relationships could tank the agreement before 2027.
“If and when the Trump administration – within the context of all the other things going on – learns of this, I think as night follows day, this thing falls,” he said.
It is logical that an administration official at some point would ask why the U.S. should uphold the agreement when a European court has ruled that some U.S. exports fail to qualify for EU logos.
“Obviously, given the current climate, anything and everything is on the table,” English said.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
