EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Transcription

1 Ref. Ares(2015) /05/2015 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office DG(SANTE) MR FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN THE NETHERLANDS FROM 11 NOVEMBER 2014 TO 18 NOVEMBER 2014 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE CONTROL SYSTEMS RELATED TO PROTECTED DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN (PDO), PROTECTED GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS (PGI) AND TRADITIONAL SPECIALITIES GUARANTEED (TSG) FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS In response to information provided by the Competent Authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.

2 Executive Summary This report describes the outcome of the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) audit in the Netherlands carried out between November 2014, under the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official food and feed controls. The objectives of the audit were the evaluation of (i) the official control systems in place for the implementation of EU legislation concerning the European Union (EU) quality schemes known as Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs), Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs), and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSGs) for agricultural products and foodstuff and (ii) traceability and labelling. The report concludes that the Competent Authorities (CAs) for official controls are clearly designated and relevant national measures are in place to implement EU Regulations on PDO/PGI/TSG. Overall there is an effective system of official controls for products of animal origin, which are economically the most significant products in the Netherlands. Such controls are undertaken at an appropriate frequency at processor level. Inspectors receive adequate training and regular supervision by the CA. However, controls relating to verification that PDO/PGI/TSG rules are implemented are not comprehensive since they do not cover some relevant EU requirements, for example inspections are not carried out at farm level except in the case of processing also taking place at the farm. There are no official controls undertaken to date either at market level or on products of nonanimal origin. These controls will take place from January This report makes recommendations to the Central Competent Authority, aimed at rectifying the shortcoming identified and enhancing the implementation of control measures. I

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Objectives Legal Basis Background Country Profile DG AGRI Quality Schemes Status of Registered Products in the Netherlands Findings and Conclusions Relevant National Legislation Organisation and Implementation of Official Controls Competent Authorities Prioritisation of Official Controls Procedures and Performance of Official Control Activities Enforcement Measures Overall conclusions Closing Meeting Recommendations...11 II

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT Abbreviation CA(s) CCA COKZ CP DG AGRI EU FVO KCB MEA MS(s) No NVWA PDO(s) PGI(s) TSG(s) Explanation Competent Authority(ies) Central Competent Authority the Netherlands Controlling Authority for Milk and Milk Products (Centraal Orgaan voor Kwaliteitsaangelegenheden in de Zuivel) Country Profile Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development European Union Food and Veterinary Office The Quality Control Bureau (Kwaliteits Controle Bureau) Ministry of Economic Affairs Member State(s) Number the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel-en Warenautoriteit) Protected Designation(s) of Origin Protected Geographical Indication(s) Traditional Speciality(ies) Guaranteed III

5 1 INTRODUCTION The audit formed part of the Food and Veterinary Office's (FVO) planned programme. The audit took place from 11 to 18 November The team comprised two auditors from the FVO, one official from Agricultural and Rural Development Directorate General (DG AGRI) and one expert from a European Union (EU) Member State (MS). Representatives from the Central Competent Authority (CCA), the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MEA) accompanied the audit team for the duration of the audit. An opening meeting was held on 11 November 2014 with the CCA and with representatives of the Competent Authorities (CAs) in charge of official controls of PDO/PGI/TSG. At this meeting, the objectives of, and itinerary for the audit were confirmed and the control systems were described by the authorities. 2 OBJECTIVES The objectives of the audit were: The evaluation of the official control systems in place for the implementation of EU legislation concerning: Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs), Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs), Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSGs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs: Regulation (EU) Number (No) 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and Council, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014: and Traceability and labelling: Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Directive 2000/13/EC In terms of scope, the audit reviewed the organisation and performance of CAs for PDO, PGI, and TSG schemes, and the official controls system in place covering production, distribution and placing on the market of these products. 1

6 In pursuit of these objectives, a sample of PDOs, PGIs and TSGs were selected and the following sites were visited: Visits/meetings Comments CCA/CAs CCA 3 CAs 3 The attendance at the opening and closing meeting included representatives from the CCA and from the CAs responsible for official controls. An additional meeting for the purpose of reviewing files and technical discussion was held on 16 th November. Establishments PDO producers / processors PGI producers / processors TSG producers / processors Supermarket Large producer/processor. Small and large producers/processors. Small producer. Visit to a large supermarket. 3 LEGAL BASIS The audit was carried out under the general provisions of EU legislation, in particular: Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council. EU legal acts quoted in this report refer, where applicable, to the most recently amended version. Full references to the EU acts quoted in this report are given in Annex 1. 4 BACKGROUND 4.1 COUNTRY PROFILE The FVO has published a country profile (CP) for the Netherlands, which describes in summary the control systems for food and feed, animal health, animal welfare and plant health and gives an overview on the state of play of the recommendations of previous FVO audits 1. The CP for the Netherlands can be found at: 1 In response to the draft report, the CA stated that "in May 2015, amendments to this text will be sent to the FVO". 2

7 4.2 DG AGRI QUALITY SCHEMES The EU quality schemes known as PDO, PGI and TSG protect and promote quality agricultural products and foodstuffs and aim to ensure the protection of their names from, inter alia, misuse, evocation and imitation and help consumers by giving them information concerning the specific character of the products: PDO covers agricultural products and foodstuffs which are produced, processed and prepared in a given geographical area using recognised know-how. PGI covers agricultural products and foodstuffs closely linked to the geographical area. At least one of the stages of production, processing or preparation takes place in the area. TSG highlights traditional character, either in the raw materials, composition or means of production. Further details on the quality schemes are available on the following website: STATUS OF REGISTERED PRODUCTS IN THE NETHERLANDS. There are five PDO, three PGI and two TSG registered from the Netherlands on the Database of Origin and Registration. Four registered names were selected to form part of this audit as a sample, in order to evaluate how the system of official controls works in the Netherlands. The criteria used by DG AGRI for selection were, inter alia, the economic value and production volume, potential risks factors, the assessment of the multi-annual national control plan and annual reports, a good mix of PDO/PGI/TSG and the vicinity of geographical locations. At the time of the FVO audit, there were around 370 producers/processors of products of animal origin and 29 producers of products of non-animal origin in the Netherlands. 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 RELEVANT NATIONAL LEGISLATION Legal Requirements Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU establishes that MSs shall adopt all measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding EU acts. Findings 1. The relevant national legislation for official controls of Product Specifications in the context of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 is as follows: 3

8 The Agricultural Quality Act (Wet van 8 April 1971, houdende een algemene regeling betreffende de kwaliteit van voortbrengselen van de landbouw en de visserij) is the general umbrella act on general rules on the quality of agriculture and fishery products. The Agricultural Quality Decision 2007 (Besluit van 19 september 2007, houdende regels inzake de kwaliteit van landbouwproductenlandbouwkwaliteitsbesluit 2007) lays down implementing rules on the quality of agricultural products. Regulation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality 2007 (Regeling van de Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit van 14 september 2007, nr.trcjz/2007/2968, houdende regels inzake de kwaliteit van landbouw-producten (Landbouwkwaliteitsregeling 2007) contains implementing rules on the quality of agricultural products. The Act on products of animal origin (Wet van 19 mei 2011 houdende een integraal kader voor regels over gehouden dieren en daaraan gerelateerde onderwerpen (wet dieren)). establishes the legal framework for animals kept and related topics. The Implementing decree (Besluit van 2 november 2012, houdende regels met betrekking tot dierlijke producten (Besluit dierlijke producten) lays down rules concerning animal products. Conclusions 2. Relevant national measures are in place to implement EU Regulations relating to official controls of PDO/PGI/TSG. 5.2 ORGANISATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OFFICIAL CONTROLS 5.2.1Competent Authorities Legal Requirements Article 36(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 requires MSs to designate CAs or authorities responsible, for carrying out official controls to verify compliance with the legal requirements related to the quality schemes established by this Regulation in accordance with Regulation (EC) 882/2004. Article 36(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 requires CAs to offer adequate guarantees of objectivity and impartiality and have at their disposal the qualified staff and resources necessary to carry out their functions. Requirements laid down in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 for CAs, in particular Articles 4 and 6. 4

9 Article 37(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 establishes that verification of compliance with the specifications before placing a product on the market can also be ensured by one or more CBs within the meaning of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 operating as a product certification body. Article 39(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, states that CAs may delegate, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, specific tasks related to official controls of the quality schemes to one or more CBs. Findings 3. As described in page 5 of the CP, the main CAs on the context of this audit are as follows: The Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (Nederlandse Voedsel-en Warenautoriteit, NVWA) is an independent agency in the MEA and a delivery agency for the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. It is the CA responsible for surveillance of the use of the registered names in the market place. The Netherlands Controlling Authority for Milk and Milk Products (Centraal Orgaan voor Kwaliteitsaangelegenheden in de Zuivel (COKZ)) is an independent body which only performs public duties. It is the designated CA to provide assurance about safety and quality of dairy products produced in the Netherlands, including official controls of PDO/PGI/TSG at processors. The Quality Control Bureau (Kwaliteits Controle Bureau (KCB) is an independent governing body, supervised by the MEA. KCB only performs public duties. KCB is the designated CA for official controls for PDO/PGI/TSG for products of food of non-animal origin. 4. All of the abovementioned CAs involved in official controls are fully competent within their own fields of activity. They are responsible from the planning and implementation of official controls, including decision-taking on enforcement measures to be applied when non-compliances are found. 5. The audit team was informed by the CCA that no formal communication has been established among all CAs involved in official controls of PDO/PGI/TSG. The CCA stated that such communication had not been necessary as no market controls had been undertaken to date (see finding No 15 and conclusion No 16). 6. There is no reference to official controls related to PDO/PGI/TSG in the country profile for the Netherlands. The FVO audit team was informed by the CCA that there is also no specific sections or references to the activities concerning official controls on PDO/PGI/TSG within the multi-annual national control plan. This is not in compliance with Article 40(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. The CCA stated during the opening meeting that a specific section to this regard is under preparation and it is expected to be included in the 2015 National Control Plan. Resources for the performance of controls 7. The FVO audit team was informed that two NVWA inspectors followed training on PDO/PGI/TSG in the framework of the "Better training for safer food" courses. In 5

10 addition, two employees from the department of enforcement policy will follow the same training in December Eight COKZ inspectors are assigned to official controls of PDO/PGI/TSG. Theoretical and on-the-spot training is provided and regular supervision is implemented through witness audits carried out by COKZ at least once a year. The FVO audit team reviewed reports on such activities and considered them to be satisfactory. 9. A limited number of KCB inspectors are expected to be in charge of official controls for products of non-animal origin. In general all KCB inspectors follow internal training to become qualified to execute controls in Fruit and Vegetables (according to Regulation (EC) No 543/2011). The KCB representative stated that this experience is valuable for part of the product specification in PDO/PGI/TSG and that some additional training might be needed for official controls on labelling. Conclusions 10. The CAs are designated for the official controls of PDO/PGI/TSG and are adequately staffed. However, activities for the control of PDO/PGI/TSG are not included in a separate section within the multi-annual national control plan, which is not in line with Article 40(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1151/ Prioritisation of Official Controls Legal Requirements Article 38 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 requires MSs to carry out checks, based on a risk analysis, to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Regulation. Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires that official controls are carried out regularly, on a risk basis and with appropriate frequency, taking account of (a) identified risks; (b) the food business operators past record as regards compliance; (c) the reliability of any own checks that have already been carried out; and (d) any information that might indicate non-compliance. Findings Verification of Compliance prior to placing the product on the market 11. The FVO audit team requested the CAs to provide the reports issued for the verification of compliance in the establishments visited. COKZ representatives stated that reports in the case of products of animal origin were no longer available as they had been issued with respect of the national rules in force before EU registrations had taken place. NVWA representative stated that no verification of compliance had been carried out for products of non-animal origin prior to placing products of non-animal origin on the market. The FVO audit team visited one producer who had placed products in the market labelled as PGI for the first time in NVWA had only carried out the first official control in This is not in line with Article 37 of Regulation 1151/2012, which establishes that verification of compliance with the product specification before placing the product on the market shall be carried out. 6

11 Official controls of processors/producers of PDO/PGI/TSG 12. Official controls are currently undertaken at cheese processing establishments, which account for the most economically valuable products in the Netherlands. The FVO audit team noted that official controls were risk-based, taking into account the inspection history, self-checks carried out by the operators and the risks associated with the nature of the products. Inspections are carried out monthly at all operators and are always unannounced. A key part of the official control is related to extensive sampling to test the composition of the products. The level of sampling can be reduced if the operator is compliant over a period of time. Self-checks carried out by operators are also taken into account to decrease the number of official samples taken. Samples for analytical tests and organoleptic tests are taken at each site visit. The additional requirements of the Product Specification other than those tested through sampling are checked at least twice a year. 13. COKZ representatives stated that there are no specific official controls for PDO/PGI/TSG undertaken at farms except when processing also takes place at that site. This is not adequate as some of the requirements of the Product Specifications may only be checked at farm level. This is also the case for the legal requirement on the use of feed for PDOs of animal origin (Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 664/2014 establishes that, in respect of PDOs of animal origin, feed must be sourced from within the defined geographical area). 14. The FVO audit team was informed that a number of products with lower economic value were not currently subject to official controls. KCB stated that such controls will commence in In one establishment visited, the FVO audit team observed a pilot audit undertaken by the NVWA for the purpose of demonstrating how controls had been carried out. The last inspection had taken place in 2008 and no other controls on PDO/PGI/TSG had been undertaken since that date. The CA stated that the lack of such official controls was due to the small and local production. This is not in compliance with Article 36(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, which establishes that official controls shall cover the verification that a product complies with the corresponding Product Specification. Official controls of PDO/PGI/TSG on the market 15. NVWA representatives confirmed that at the time of the audit there were no market controls on PDO/PGI/TSG. This is not in compliance with Article 36(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, which establishes that official controls shall cover the monitoring of the use of registered names to describe product placed on the market. For the purpose of discussion and illustration on the different issues that might occur at market level, the FVO audit team along with NVWA visited a large supermarket. Some examples of noncompliances related to labelling were detected. Conclusions 16. Prioritisation of official controls does not include the verification of compliance prior to placing on the market of new registered products. There are no controls in place for products of non-animal origin nor are there any controls on the market. For the products already subject to controls, no visits are carried out at farm level and therefore it cannot be ensured that all EU legal provisions are checked. 7

12 5.2.3 Procedures and Performance of Official Control Activities Legal Requirements Article 36(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 requires that official controls cover (a) verification that a product complies with the corresponding Product Specification: and (b) monitoring of the use of the registered names to describe product placed on the market in conformity with Articles 13 and 24 as appropriate. Article 46(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 requires MSs to ensure that any operator complying with the rules of a quality scheme set out in Titles II and III of this Regulation is entitled to be covered by the verification of compliance established pursuant to Article 37. Article 13(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 requires that registered names for PDOs and PGIs shall be protected against (a) a direct or indirect commercial use of a registered name in respect of products not covered by the registration (b) any misuse, imitation or evocation, even if the true origin of the product is indicated (c) any other false or misleading indication as to the provenance, origin, nature or essential qualities of the product, on the packaging, advertising material or documents relating to the product concerned (d) any other practice liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product. Article 24(1) of the same Regulation requires that registered names for TSGs shall be protected against any misuse, imitation or evocation or against any other practice liable to mislead the consumer Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014 establishes specific rules on sourcing of feed and raw materials. Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 establishes traceability requirements in food and feed. Article 4(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 establishes specific rules on sourcing of feed and of raw materials. Article 10(2)(b)(vi) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires that official controls on food include, inter alia, the inspection of labelling, presentation and advertising. Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the MSs relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs provides the legal framework for food labelling. Articles 12, 23 and 44 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664/2014. Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires that CAs carry out their official controls in accordance with documented procedures, containing information and instructions for staff performing official controls. Article 9 of the above Regulation requires CAs to draw up reports on the official controls carried out, including a description of the purpose of official controls, the methods applied, the results obtained and any action to be taken by the business operator concerned. 8

13 Findings 17. The FVO audit team witnessed four inspections carried out at producers and processors of PDG/PGI/TSG products. Three of them were routine inspections carried out by COKZ. The remaining one was a pilot inspection carried out by NVWA in a producer of PDO/PGI/TSG of non-animal origin. The NVWA was the CA to inspect that establishment in The inspection was also witnessed by a KCB representative, as this CA will be responsible for controls as from January COKZ inspectors stated that all inspections are unannounced, in line with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. In all establishments visited, inspections are carried out regularly with appropriate frequency. The main object of the visits is sample-taking, with a large number of samples taken for the purpose of organoleptic and laboratory testing. Although sampling is undertaken in every inspection, two inspections per year are also dedicated to examining other requirements contained in the product specifications. 19. There are documented procedures in place giving instructions and information to the inspectors. These procedures, which require approval by the MEA, include checklists used by inspectors, which are specific for each Product Specification. The FVO audit team noted that this inspection list is the basis for the inspection. During the visits, all inspectors checked the requirements contained in the checklists. However, checklists do not contain in all cases all the requirements of the product specification. In addition the requirements related to identification and correlation between inputs and outputs, as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 were not included to date. Inspectors confirmed that they do not perform mass-balance calculations. Inspectors did not check documentary evidence recorded by operators in any of the sites visited. 20. After each inspection, a debriefing with operators takes place to communicate the outcome of the visit. Reports describing the purpose and the outcome of inspections related to PDO/PGI/TSG products are issued and submitted to the central level. Subsequently, a written report is prepared at the central level and sent to the operator a few days after the inspection informing them on the outcome of inspection, including laboratory results. Conclusions 21. For the products subject to official controls, documented procedures are in place and overall adequate controls are carried out. However, some relevant requirements in the EU Regulations and in the Product Specification are not controlled as they are not included in the checklists used by inspectors Enforcement Measures Legal Requirements Article 13.3 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 requires MSs to take appropriate administrative and judicial steps to prevent or stop the unlawful use of PDO/PGI, as referred to in paragraph 1 of that Article, that are produced or marketed in that MSs. 9

14 Article 54 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 requires a CA which identifies a non-compliance to take appropriate action to ensure that the operator remedies the situation. Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 states that MSs shall lay down the rules on sanctions applicable to infringements of feed and food law and other EU provisions relating to the protection of animal health and welfare and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The sanctions provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive Findings 22. The Agricultural Quality Act provides the legal basis for enforcement measures. All the CAs involved in official controls have legal powers to take actions in case of noncompliance. 23. The FVO audit team reviewed four enforcement files concerning cases of noncompliance found at operators and noted that overall the measures taken were satisfactory. They included monetary fines and a request to the operator to take remedial action. The severity of the non-compliance and whether it is repeated is factored into the sanction applied. Conclusions 24. A system of enforcement is in place and adequately implemented. 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The report concludes that the CAs for official controls are clearly designated and relevant national measures are in place to implement EU Regulations on PDO/PGI/TSG. Overall there is an effective system of official controls for products of animal origin, which are the most significant products in the Netherlands. Such controls are undertaken at an appropriate frequency at processor level and inspectors receive adequate training and regular supervision by the CA. However, controls relating to verification that PDO/PGI/TSG rules are implemented are not comprehensive since they do not cover some relevant EU requirements, for example inspections are not carried out at farm level except in the case of processing also taking place at the farm.. There are no official controls undertaken to date either at market level or on products of nonanimal origin. These controls are planned to commence as from January CLOSING MEETING A closing meeting was held on 18 November 2014 with representatives of the CCA and all the CAs responsible for official controls. At this meeting, the audit team presented the main findings of the audit and a number of points were clarified. 10

15 8 RECOMMENDATIONS The CCA is invited to provide details of the actions taken and planned, including deadlines for their completion ('action plan'), aimed at addressing the recommendation set out below, within twenty five working days of receipt of this audit report. The CCA should: No. Recommendation 1. Ensure that activities concerning official controls on PDO/PGI/TSG are specifically included in a separate section within the multi-annual national control plans, as established by Articles 40(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Conclusions upon which this recommendation is based and associated findings: No 6 and No Ensure that the relevant Competent Authorities carry out verification of compliance with the product specification before placing the product on the market in respect of PDO/PGI/TSG, as established in Article 37(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Conclusions upon which this recommendation is based and associated findings: No 11 and No Ensure that all registered names are subject to official controls covering the verification that a product complies with the corresponding Product Specification, as established by Article 36(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Conclusions upon which this recommendation is based and associated findings: No 14 and No Ensure that documented procedures in place include verification of the following EU requirements: Requirements in the Product Specification to be complied with at farm level; Requirements as regard the origin of feed as established in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) No 664/2014; Requirements related to identification and correlation between inputs and outputs, as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 Conclusions upon which this recommendation is based and associated findings: No 13, No 16, No 19 and No Ensure that official controls cover the monitoring of the use of registered names to describe product placed on the market, as established in Article 36(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012. Conclusions upon which this recommendation is based and associated findings: No 5, No 15 and No

16 ANNEX 1 LEGAL REFERENCES Legal Reference Official Journal Title Horizontal Legislation Reg. 178/2002 OJ L 31, , p Reg. 882/2004 OJ L 165, , p. 1, Corrected and re-published in OJ L 191, , p. 1 Labelling Legislation Dir. 2000/13/EC OJ L 109, , p PDO/PGI/TSG Legislation Reg. 1151/2012 OJ L 343, , p Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs Reg.664/2014 OJ L p 17 Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 664 of 18 December 2013 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the establishment of the Union symbols for protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional specialities guaranteed and with regard to certain rules on sourcing, certain procedural rules and certain additional transitional rules. 12

17 Legal Reference Official Journal Title Reg 668/2014 OJ L p36 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. 13

18 ANNEX 1 LEGAL REFERENCES Legal Reference Official Journal Title