No apologies have been received.

We will begin with a note on privilege. I bring to the attention of witnesses that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by a witness outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting where the participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts, and any attempt to do so will result in members having their online access removed. Everyone who is participating is present in the room.

The first item on the agenda is a briefing on COM (2025) 780, which is a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and European Council amending EU Regulation No. 2018/848 as regards certain production, labelling and certification rules and certain rules on trade with third countries. The committee will hear from Mr. Brian McGee, principal officer, and Mr. Niall Ryan, agricultural inspector, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Cuirim fáilte rompu. Their opening statement has been circulated and I will allow Mr. McGee to read it. I am conscious a vote has been called in the Dáil and members will be heading away to it, but we will continue with the opening statement.

Was that called just called now?

I just saw it now.

How long has it been? Has it been a couple of minutes?

I do not know. I was focusing on the privilege.

We can get the statement read into the record while the Cathaoirleach is away if he wants. I do not mind taking the Chair and the witnesses can read their statements into the record.

We will do that, if Senator Daly takes the Chair.

It needs to be proposed and seconded.

I propose that Senator Daly take the Chair.

I second it

The opening statement has been circulated to members. Mr. McGee has five minutes to read it or to give a brief synopsis of it and then we will proceed to questions. Given the scenario we find ourselves in, if he wishes, Mr. McGee may read his entire statement into the record.

That sounds fine. Will I go ahead?

I am not telling him to read it if he prefers to give a synopsis. He has a choice or he can do a bit of both.

It is about five minutes.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chathaoirleach for the opportunity to address the committee to contribute to its discussions on the proposed regulation of the European Parliament and European Council amending Regulation EU 2018/848 as regards certain production, labelling and certification rules and certain rules on trade with third countries.

Organic farming is a production system that promotes environmental sustainability, animal welfare, human health and food quality by relying on natural processes, crop rotation, closed nutrient cycles and farm diversification. Organic farming is a key element of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. The share of land farmed organically has been growing steadily and is currently around 11% across the EU. Consumers increasingly choose to buy organic food, recognisable through the logo for organic production of the European Union.

The current rules on organic farming are laid down in EU Regulation 2018/848 on organic production and labelling of organic products. The rules not only define the methods of production for organic crops and livestock, but also regulate the labelling, processing, inspection and marketing of organic products within the EU and the importation of organic products from non-member countries. Following a number of Commission initiatives focusing on simplification and boosting competitiveness and after a consultation, it was concluded that some elements of Regulation 2018/848 and the delegated regulations could be simplified in a targeted manner. The changes proposed are targeted adjustments related to products and substances for cleaning and disinfection in processing and storage facilities; the labelling of products from equivalent third countries; the conditions for exempting smaller operators selling unpacked organic products; the requirements as regards the composition of groups of operators and their members; the postponement of the expiry of the recognition of third countries for the purposes of equivalence under Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007; setting a conversion period and a minimum age at slaughter for quails for meat production; the withdrawal period after treating livestock with veterinary medicinal products; conditions for access to open air areas for poultry; and poultry houses per production unit for fattening poultry.

I will turn to targeted adjustments relating to trade. The European Court of Justice, ECJ, ruling on case C-240/23 Herbaria Kräuterparadies II is of note.

It ruled that the regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a product imported from a third country, whose organic production and control systems have been recognised as equivalent to those of the EU, either through international agreement with the third countries, or, where the third countries were recognised for the purpose of equivalence, may not have on its labelling the organic production logo of the European Union or, in principle, terms referring to organic production. The ECJ further ruled that the use of the organic production logo of the third country from which such product comes should be permitted on the product, even where that logo contains terms identical to those referring to organic production.

To ensure a level playing field between products that fully comply with EU production control rules and those that comply with rules equivalent to those EU rules, and to respond to consumer expectations that products imported from third countries whose organic production and control systems have been recognised as equivalent to those of the EU, the use of the organic production logo of the European Union should be allowed in the labelling, presentation and advertising of products provided that, in addition to those equivalent rules, those products comply with certain additional production and control requirements. The use of the organic production logo of the European Union should therefore be allowed by products processed in the Union and that contain organic ingredients either produced in accordance with this regulation, or imported from third countries whose organic production and control systems have been recognised as equivalent to those of the Union, if those ingredients account for less than 5% of the agricultural ingredients of the product.

The recognition of third countries whose organic production and control systems have been recognised as equivalent to those of the EU will expire on 31 December 2026. The Commission recognised 11 third countries pursuant to Article 33 for the purpose of equivalents. After 31 December 2026, the existing equivalence arrangements will come to an end and will have to be replaced by international agreements on trade in organic products. The proposed measure postpones the date of expiry of the recognition of the 11 third countries laid down in Article 48(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 to 31 December 2036, with a view to allow for a sufficiently long period of time to complete these exchanges and subsequent negotiations, and ensure a smooth transition to the scheme of recognition of third countries through international agreements. If the equivalence arrangements were to expire on 31 December 2026, it would be more difficult to continue current trade with the equivalent third countries concerned. This would be particularly detrimental to EU operators, as the EU enjoys a positive trade balance with those third countries in relation to organic products.

Ireland recognises that EU Regulation 2018/848 provides a sound basis for a reliable and growing organic sector in the Union and it is necessary to make targeted adjustments to certain production rules to create a more efficient, effective and user-friendly regulatory framework. Furthermore, given that the recognition of third countries whose organic production and control systems have been proven as equivalent to those of the Union will expire on 31 December 2026 and that technical exchanges with those third countries with a view to concluding agreements on trade in organic products are still ongoing, it is necessary and urgent for those third countries to continue to be recognised until 31 December 2036 to avoid disruptions in trade of organic products. Ireland will support our Cyprus Presidency colleagues as they begin the progress discussions on the necessary arrangements, and we will engage fully with all parties when we take up the Presidency mantle for the second half of the year in order to ensure conclusion of the discussions on the proposal, and its entry into force by the end of 2026.

Go raibh maith agat. I have a couple of questions myself and then we will go to Senator Brady. I am hopeful the TDs will be back at that stage. This is solely about organic. How stringently tied is it? Mr. McGee stated that the proposals mention "conditions for access to open air areas for poultry" and "poultry houses per production unit". As an example, during the recent avian flu, there was talk when we were in the housing order that if poultry were housed beyond a certain number of days that they might lose their free-range status. In special circumstances, what flexibilities are there? Who policies this? As Mr. McGee is probably aware, we had a big debate and discussion here last week on labelling on general and the burning topic of the moment is Brazilian beef and how some of that got into the food chain. While this all sounds very good and the equivalents of standards for organics from third countries, who actually polices what crosses the borders and determines yes or no in time, not down the line when the product has entered the food chain? I will let Mr. McGee answer those for the moment anyway.

I will start with the last part first.

Before Mr. McGee starts, where is this at? I know he says he hopes it comes to conclusion during our Presidency at the back end of the year. Where is it at at the moment in the political structure?

The working parties have started to sit in relation to this new regulation. They are being chaired by the current Presidency, which is Cyprus. The working party is between the European Commission that has drafted the proposal, which is the one the committee has probably seen online and that I have summarised here, and then the working party will be taking feedback from all 27 member states on that proposal from the European Commission. There is quite a bit of discussion to happen on that. There are a lot of points of view on this because there are importers and exporters of organic goods in the Union. For example, some of the larger countries like France export a large volume of wine to countries like the US so organic wine is a very big growth area. There are many points of view. The next stage is that the European Parliament will begin negotiations also with the Commission and the Presidency to bring their points of view to the fore. Once we get a concluding position from the Parliament and the Presidency - and that will be us, because Ireland will be in the Presidency seat at that point - the Council and the Commission will enter trialogues. Those trilogues will hopefully get concluded by the end of the year. It is still at a very early stage. These are just proposals right now and they are based purely on the intent to simplify the regulations for all of this.

If there is any pick-up along the way, what happens to the fact that on 31 December we are not recognising third countries' organic standards as equivalent to our standards?

In the event that it is not concluded by the end of the year, trade with those countries will effectively stop under the equivalency arrangements. This means goods coming in will not be able to be labelled organic and goods leaving the European Union may or may not be let into the US or other markets and labelled organic. It would be messy. I am not quite sure what the ramifications would be but I believe it will impact trade and that is certainly the message we are getting from the Commission.

Finally, there was the question about the flexibility in the situation where the housing order or similar such circumstances.

Sure. I will get my colleague, Mr. Ryan, to talk about that from the inspection point of view.

It is written into the regulations that there are exceptions to these rules where restrictions are required by a member state. We do have the flexibility and we have implemented that all around avian flu where the Minister has requested all birds be housed. That is catered for within the regulations and also within the amendments.

I call Senator Brady. He has until the TDs come in.

That is the first time I have ever had time in here.

The witnesses are very welcome. I thank Mr. McGee for the presentation. I will mention a couple of issues. There is huge emphasis now on trying to get young people invested - and I use the word "invested" - into organics because there seems to be huge emphasis on pushing people towards organics; also from the Department of agriculture here. I would like a comment on this. Is this a roadmap or a policy that is coming in from Europe regarding climate action, meeting our targets and food security, as well as a quality? I ask about that first of all and then I will come to another point.

I thank the Senator. "Yes" is the answer. The European Union, under the farm to fork strategy, has set a target for organic production useable agricultural area of 25% for the Union by 2035. It is currently at about 11% having grown very significantly in the past ten years. It is certainly a policy of the Union and it is very much built around the fact that organic farming has a lighter impact on the environment, while at the same time can, in some cases, achieve production rates similar to mid-sized farms.

In Ireland, the push for organics has come in the last ten years, and really in the last five years, when we have doubled the number of farmers in the organic farming scheme and tripled the amount of land to 248,000 ha being farmed organically. Organics bring a lot of benefits from farming and environmental points of view because they have also been deemed to be exempt from the European GAEC standards. Organic farmers are effectively viewed to be compliant with the GAEC standards if they are organic, for GAEC 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. From a biodiversity and water point of view, and many other ways, organic farming brings benefits.

Fundamentally, it is important to realise that the demand for organic food is growing at a fast rate. It grew by 10% in Germany last year. Its compound annual growth rate over the next ten years is to be 10% a year. The reason for that is that the consumer is more and more interested in buying organic produce. It is also interesting that Europe exports more organics than it imports. It imports the likes of bananas, pineapples, coffee, tea and other things e do not actually make in the Union. It is very much focused on European-produced food, including beef, lamb, horticulture and so on. It is coming from both ends. It is a policy direction but the consumer is driving it as well. Does that answer the Senator's question?

Yes. Mr. McGee is saying it is basically housewife-driven. Europe has got a message from the housewives stating that there is a demand for an organic product, plus it meets our European targets. Mr. McGee referred to the 27 member states. Within the Union, there is good practice and there is bad practice. Unfortunately, in all aspects, there has to be good practice and bad practice. We will come back to the subject of Ireland. If farmers are involved in organic sheep farming, dosing is limited or there is none. Is that correct?

In the rules of organic farming, animal welfare is paramount. Within that, a farm can use veterinary treatments if they are prescribed by a vet and the farm can demonstrate that it needs to use them. Animal welfare and health is paramount within the rules. Healthy animals are wanted.

Dung samples-----

Exactly. There could be farms in a certain part of the country where issues such as blackleg are common. When farmers enter organic farming, they draw up what is called a conversion plan. They set out what they are doing at present, what farming practices are currently used on the farm, and they set out how they are going to farm in line with the organic rules. Veterinary treatments come underneath that, so if farmers have known issues on their farm, they consult their vet and the farmer and the vet draw up a health plan for the farm, which is submitted. The Senator is correct about using treatments in that farmers need to demonstrate that they need to use those treatments. The withdrawal periods according to the organic rules are double.

What I am trying to get at here is that organic farmers are still allowed to use meals, albeit organic meals, and they must show receipts when audited. Is there any way, when that animal goes to the food chain, of testing whether it has all been organic from start to finish or is there a flaw in the system? Organic meal costs €460 or €470 a tonne, I presume. It has to be dearer than average meal. We are importing soy and proteins from other European countries to make up our meal balance. Is the whole system foolproof? The witnesses talked about audits and so on. I am talking about good practice and bad practice.

This is a highly regulated sector and every operator must be certified and their activities must be inspected. They are inspected annually in our country. The Department of agriculture is the competent authority to implement the EU regulation. We have delegated the certification and inspection task to two certification bodies that work on our behalf, the Irish Organic Association and the Organic Trust. Each year, at least once per year, they inspect each registered organic operator. They also do a number of spot inspections and tests. The regulation requires them to do so. Farmers have to keep records of their activities and inputs into the system. This will be part of the conversion plan. When they originally declare that they want to join organic farming, they must state the number of animals they intend to keep on their farm and how they intend to manage those animals, including whether they need to buy in feed sources.

The organic inspection body is aware of this when it goes to farms. It discusses with farmers where they are going to get the feed and asks them to keep records of that feed. We do reconciliations of the number of animals on the farm, the amount of feed bought and the period in which the animals may be fattened or finished. The certification body has to establish whether it is satisfied that this organic operator is operating fully in compliance with the regulations. If it has any doubt, it can list those people for spot inspections. They can arrive at any time, without any notification, and visit a farm. If they are in doubt about any feed-stuff, they are entitled to take a sample of that feed and then that sample is entitled to be tested.

If farmers were bringing in silage and the inspection body felt that fertiliser had been used in the growing of that silage, could it take that for testing?

When silage is brought in, the body would ask the farmer. As I said, farmers keep records. They would have to record the amount of feed they produced on their own farm, and if they bought in any silage, they would have to declare that. If they purchased that from another organic farmer, which they are supposed to do, they must get a copy of the other farmer's organic licence as a record of that transaction.

They are meant to purchase from organics to organics.

Yes.

Okay. I thank Mr. Ryan for his time.

As a final point, there will always be people in this world who want to do things the wrong way. The system is set up to try to ensure that that does not happen. In our experience, to go through the difficulty of conversion to become an organic farmer, which is a two-year process, takes a hell of a commitment from a farmer. We generally find that people who want to do that are serious about it and committed to it. Some people leave because it is too difficult.

We accept people into a conversion process and some people back away and do not do it, which is perfectly fine because it is not for everyone. Our experience is that it is very positive. People undertake it with a positive attitude.

I welcome the witnesses. I wish everyone who works in organics well. It is not my cup of tea but I salute those people who are in it. They do not get enough money for their produce. While I do not want to put a price on organic milk, it needs to be higher than it is. The cost of organic feed alone can be north of €600 per tonne. That is a huge amount of money for people to pay. I understand that all the feed-stuff has to be organic, such as the feed and silage. You can imagine what people are paying for a bale of organic silage. That is neither here nor there, however.

Given that updating organic rules increases the workload for inspectors, how does the Department keep up its inspections without causing delays in compliance checks? I only have six minutes so I ask the witnesses to be brief.

On the input costs, that is, the feed, the Teagasc national farm survey now includes organic farming. It will be the policy to continue to track organic farming. The lower input costs are noted in that. While there is a cost for feed in organics, and organic feed is more expensive, pasture is the main source of food for the animals. There are very few other input costs associated with the farm. That is where there are significant savings for the farmers.

I will let Mr. Ryan answer the Deputy’s question on inspections, as he is an agricultural inspector.

Each year, the organic certification bodies carry out an annual inspection of each and every operator in the country. As Mr. McGee said, we have seen significant growth in the number of organic farmers in the last number of years. Our inspection bodies have also employed more inspectors.

More inspectors have been employed to inspect the farms.

Yes.

That is all right. That is the answer I wanted.

Assessing whether non-EU organic products meet EU equivalent standards is complex and resource intensive. How will the Department prevent this from delaying market access for both imports and Irish exports?

All organic products, whether they are made in the Union or an equivalent country, have to be certified. There is a list of certification bodies approved by the Commission. If the products are not certified by one of those bodies, then they are not deemed equivalent. That is the way it works.

What steps is the Department taking to minimise the administrative burden caused by stricter labelling and production standards, particularly for smaller farms?

This whole effort from the Commission is about simplification to make it easier for food producers to meet the organic standards. There is a constant push to try to make it simpler. With organics, the biggest advantage under the new simplification model is that organics will be deemed to be compliant with the good agricultural and environmental conditions, GAECs. There are seven GAECs, which encompass normal things farms are inspected for. Farms will be deemed organic if they are compliant with six of those.

Six out of the seven GAECs.

Yes.

That is grand. That is all I wanted to know.

It significantly simplifies the job of the organic farmer.

How will the Department support small and medium farms to enter or expand organic production?

Will the Deputy repeat the question?

How will the Department support small- and medium-sized farms, because they are the majority of farms in organics?

They are. We have the organic farming scheme under the current CAP strategic plan, CSP, which runs until 2027. The CSP is usually plus two years. For the foreseeable future, it will be under the organic farming scheme. However, the drafts from the Commission in relation to the next CAP make it clear that organics are central to EU policy and will remain so. While we do not know the shape of that in terms of what will be-----

Mr. McGee expects more money for organics. That is what he is hoping for, anyway.

A lot of negotiations will happen between now and then. Certainly, from a policy point of view, it is clearly central to European policy.

Is the Department planning to protect domestic producers from the market pressure caused by imported products undercutting organic Irish farmers in price?

I do not see a huge amount of that. Organic imports into Ireland are relatively low. A total of 47,000 tonnes of organic products came into Ireland. They consisted mainly of tea, coffee, chocolate, animal feed and wine. These are the kinds of products------

Organic animal feed is coming in.

Yes.

I have follow-up question on that. How will the Department ensure consumers will be able to clearly distinguish genuine EU organic products from non-EU products that use the term “organic”?

That is where the regulation comes in. That is all laid out-----

Who is regulating that?

That is the European Union proposal that is being negotiated as part of the-----

When the stuff comes into Ireland, who regulates it?

All organic products brought in, from anywhere, have to go through the port, and they are inspected at the port. Mr. Ryan will talk about that.

Before any product from a third country is allowed to come into the EU, the exporter of that product must create what is called a certificate of inspection. In order to do that, they have to present all of the documentation, including the quantities of the organic produce and supplier and licensing details.

Where is the majority of it coming in from?

We would have-----

What country is the organic meal coming in from?

England is where most of it comes from.

Mr. Ryan is fully satisfied that it is organic.

With the organic regulations, no matter the country the product moves from, it cannot be moved without having the associated paperwork.

Is the origin of the farm on that?

Yes.

With regard to the origin of the farm, it is up to the exporting certifying body to have all that detail.

It is a highly regulated type of farming. It is very detailed.

I am short two questions. I might come back in later.

We will be able to give members another round.

I welcome the witnesses. When it comes to inspections and penalties of organic farms, if a farmer who has been in the organic scheme for a number of years fails one inspection, my understanding is that they must pay back all the payments under that scheme over its lifetime. Is that the case? Is that a fair system to have in place if the farmer has complied with all the regulations up to, say, year 5 or 7?

There are two things at play in this regard. First, a farmer is a licensed organic operator. They are inspected annually by the certification body and there are various levels of non-compliance that go up to what is called a level 4 infringement, where the licence is removed from an operator. That is in cases of serious breaches of organic rules. In tandem with that, most organic farmers in this country operate within our organic farming scheme and are in receipt of payments from the Department of agriculture to farm organically. Where a certification body inspects a farmer and finds that they have to remove the organic licence, that is notified to us. In that scenario, we review that situation. That has to be discussed with the Department if someone’s certificate is going to be removed. Only in cases where there are serious breaches of the rules do we agree to that.

If that happens, unfortunately, and if that farmer is in the organic farming scheme, OFS - the majority of farmers are - then the farmer is in a five-year programme. If they lose their licence, they cannot undertake the commitment to five years. In such a scenario, we would seek to claw back the payments we made to the farmer. However, this applies only in a very serious rule breach situation.

That is the position. Is there any payment scheme or arrangement that is made with the farmer? In some cases, these are big fines. What is the process where a farmer is removed, the payments are required and they are backdated for a long period of time? What is the payment plan and what arrangement can be made?

It is my understanding within the Department that, if a farmer approaches us saying they cannot give back all the money, we will enter into a recoupment plan with that farmer over a period of time.

In regard to the GAECs, the new changes will mean that organic farmers are going to be considered compliant with six out of the seven. What are the six? Is that a recent change?

Yes.

Will Mr. Ryan expand on that, please?

Until now, under the current CAP strategic plan and under our current conditionality rules, organic farmers were deemed exempted from GAEC 7, which was to do with crop rotations. However, the EU has been constantly looking at a simplification package. In regard to organic farming, it has looked at a number of GAECs. Most GAECs are focused around soil, soil health, protection of habitats and hedgerows, and so on. To be correct, there are actually nine GAECs. The organic unit within the EU has looked at this and, following a consultation process, has agreed with other Commission colleagues that organic farmers should be exempted from GAEC 1, which we in Ireland do not implement. The others are GAECs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Off the top of my head, they are all related to soil and the protection of soil because where organic farming is concerned, soil health has always been seen as paramount. In terms of growing, a healthy biologically active soil will produce healthy crops, to produce healthy animals.

Regarding COM (2025) 780, how will the new labelling rules ensure fairness between European Union organic produce and imports to the European Union? What are the key changes and how would they improve fairness?

The changes are coming out of the European Court of Justice ruling, which redefined what equivalence means. The Commission is proposing additional requirements in what is called annex 7, a list of about nine different things of further steps that third countries will have to take in order to be deemed equivalent. The Commission is effectively raising the bar. Raising the bar ensures fairness for European farmers. Typically, what are imported into Europe are not so much competing products as they are products that we do not produce, such as pineapples, bananas, coffee and chocolate. These types of produce come in from third countries because they are often used in the production of other foods.

Is this new proposal going to ensure equivalence? Is it going to be exact parity in terms of equivalence or what does that mean?

No, it is not compliant, but equivalent. Equivalence is currently defined as one thing and in the new rules it will be what it is now plus some additional aspects to get equivalence. It is not in compliance. It does not mean they are exactly the same. It just means they are close to it.

This goes both ways. When European goods go out of Europe and are exported into the US, our rules are not exactly the same as those in the US but it also has equivalence and allows the European goods in. The same with Canada or wherever.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. Many of the questions have been asked. On the issue of the ECJ ruling in regard to the control of products coming into the EU and being allowed to use the EU organic logo on certain foods provided they meet certain standards, I appreciate what was said in previous comments that a lot of the organic materials coming to Europe are not products we are able to grow in Europe anyway. However, there are some, particularly in the vegetable sector. That is one of the main areas where we see a lot of produce coming into the EU. We need to be absolutely sure about the level of inspections so that the equivalence granted to these products is being adhered to. I would like to get comments in regard to the level of inspection and testing of produce from third countries, particularly as regards pesticides and fertilisers used in the country of origin.

Mr. Ryan will talk about the inspections. Deputy Kenny is absolutely right. It is important to say that the European leaf logo is a consumer logo to allow the consumer to know that something is organic or produced organically. Consumers choose organic produce for a variety of reasons. Some people may be coming at it from their views on climate and lower emissions, some come at it from the lack of pesticides, as the Deputy pointed out. They do not like the idea of pesticides being used. It is very serious and important that consumers get what they are looking for. That is why the Union takes this seriously in relation to organic produce and why every product that is imported into the EU has to be already certified and inspected by farms and bodies in those third countries. It is a tightly controlled system. When the goods arrive in Ireland, we do random checks in the port. We also test for pesticides in the port. A risk analysis is done based on the country the goods are coming from. In the event that trace elements of pesticides are found, there is a problem for the importer but also the product itself, which is destroyed or sent back.

I will follow on there. The EU takes the inspection system seriously. The regulation requires member states to do random sampling. If there is any issue with a product, for example, if a pesticide is found in a product, that member state must put that up on the EU platform where every other member state can see that this has happened. The member state will then contact the exporter to find out what has happened in this case and how such a thing could arise. Everyone in the EU is able to see these things happening. The Commission takes a close look at this. It is also involved in testing. Each year, it identifies products and countries that are high risk. Each year, we have separate meetings at EU level around high-risk products, where the EU identifies some countries and some products and asks member states to ensure that, if they are importing those products, they conduct testing on them. It is a highly regulated sector. We have our own sampling plan. We take samples throughout the year on third-country products coming into our border control points.

What quantities of meat products from third countries into Europe would be classified as organic?

In 2025, there was no meat product imported to Ireland. In relation to Europe, 99.8% of meat consumed in Europe was produced in Europe on organic.

Also on this regulation and Irish farmers who are growing and producing organics, Mr. Ryan said that, if someone was in breach, it was very serious for them. He mentioned that it was very rare and did not happen very often. How often would it happen? I am not asking for names and addresses but how many farmers would have been in breach and found themselves falling foul of those regulations and having to leave the organic sector?

I do not have the figures off the top of my head but, as I said, there are different levels of non-compliance. Sometimes, it might require organic status being removed from an animal, a number of animals or maybe a crop or crop type. An example of something very serious would be feeding feed that contains genetically modified ingredients. Feeding a lot of that to fattening animals would be a breach where somebody could lose their licence. We have a number of those every year but it would not be-----

It would be less than a dozen a year.

Yes.

I am interested because in my part of the country, in Leitrim, we have the organic centre and Drumshanbo Mart is one of the few in the country where there is an organic sale. Farmers tell me that sometimes you can get as good a price on the conventional side when you bring your organic animal than you can when you bring it to the organic side. There is an issue with the amount of effort and regulation that farmers have to comply with. I know this is not entirely the officials' remit but the return does not seem to be there. What more can happen to ensure they will see an effective return for the level of effort they put in?

That is a really good point. In very recent times, the price of all beef has gone through the roof. That has narrowed the gap between what the organic price is and the conventional price. However, we have just returned from Germany where we were at the Biofach organic trade fair, which is the largest trade fair for organics in the world. There is no end to demand for organic beef from Europe. There is already a 30% gap between supply and demand in Europe. Consumers are looking for it and they are paying for it at the cash register. Over the long term, organics will pay off for farmers in my very strong view. It is a premium segment of the market. It is the top shelf.

Thank you.

The beef is laid out on the shelves on different layers from the lowest up and the organic is on the top in Germany, Sweden and France. Our view is that will continue to be the case.

I thank Mr. McGee. Deputy Newsome Drennan is next.

On spot checks and yearly checks, are spot checks done following a tip off or are there so many done every year? Does that increase with the additional organic farmers that come on board in Ireland, for example? Can the same be said for farmers in non-EU countries? Are they like-for-like with our checks within the European Union?

The EU regulation requires us to do at least 10% spot checks.

Along with yearly checks.

Along with the annual check. That is what takes place here and in every other EU country. As I said, it is up to each certification body to look at the cohort of registered operators and identify risks. Some of those might be on a higher risk and they will get unannounced inspections. The bodies tend to target people who are in conversion or close in the conversion process to look at their operations at that time.

For ourselves, we could recommend an inspection to the Department of agriculture from knowledge we received from the certification body. We are the competent authority to do so.

There are rules on organic farming in other countries. They have certification standards there. They all have to receive inspections each year. As Mr. McGee said, the EU enters into equivalency arrangements with some of these countries to allow imports into the EU but it has restricted what these countries can export. The 11 countries that are part and parcel of the amendment now are not allowed to export all of their organic produce. The EU has entered into arrangements with these countries and determined that some of their activities are equivalent and, therefore, some of the products being produced organically in them are allowed to move into the EU. For some other countries around the world where there is not an equivalency arrangement but where there are organic rules, a certification body can contact the EU and ask that the EU look at their activities, controls and rules of organic farming and allow those products. It is highly regulated.

Have there been any EU investigations? Let us just look at the beef that was imported from Brazil. Has anyone in the EU done any spot checks of their own or any investigations into products that were coming in from non-EU countries? Sometimes, you cannot take their word for it.

Understood. Goods at the point of entry are inspected by each country – that would be us-----

That would be the paperwork, though.

No, it is actually sampling and sending the sample to a lab.

Is that sampling of every shipload that comes in?

A risk percentage.

A percentage.

It is important to note that organics are slightly different, in that, generally speaking, the certifying body in the other country takes organics very seriously. Organics involves people who are serious about not using hormones and all these chemicals on food, so it is rare that one finds issues. However, we do find issues and if we do they are fully investigated.

Mr. McGee said that, if issues were found, products would either be destroyed or returned. Has that happened in many situations? Would the products generally be from outside the EU? Surely there have been returns.

Yes. We have had situations ourselves. We have a sampling plan. The EU has identified countries that are high risk and identified products from countries that are high risk. We have taken samples from third countries where we have found tiny traces of pesticide in those. The options, once they are within the EU limits for that pesticide – all pesticides are controlled in the EU and they all have residue limits-----

Sorry. Mr. Ryan said "limits". Are they allowed to use a certain amount?

No-----

Or should I say they are allowed get away with a certain amount?

No, they are not. I have to explain this again. In organics, pesticides are not allowed at all - that is it. If we do a sample test of a product from a third country and find a tiny pesticide residue, that product cannot be sold as organic. It is as simple as that. If that residue level is within the EU legislation permitted limit-----

For conventional.

-----for conventional, the importer can downgrade that product and sell it as conventional or, as in most cases, destroy the product.

Okay. What are the differences in regulations between EU and non-EU products?

Does Mr. McGee see any issues going forward? Is there anything that can be done to get countries to have an equal playing field? What issues does the Department see in that?

That is part of the new proposal from the European Commission which is being negotiated now with the Council and the Parliament. They are raising the bar by adding requirements under what is called annexe 7. To be deemed equivalent, countries have to go further than they are right now. That is how seriously the Commission takes-----

What issues does Mr. McGee see with other countries?

That is a negotiation that will have to happen. The Commission has had enough contact with the countries involved to know they have some level of comfort that this will be accepted.

That they are willing.

Yes. We are optimistic that is possible. If it is not possible, there is a trade implication. As I said in my opening statement, Europe exports more organics than it imports. This is important for all of us from an export point of view. From an Irish point of view, while we are very small currently in our organic production and exports, we are growing. We are the third fastest growing organic production company in Europe, but we are third from the bottom in terms of the area we use for farming. We have a lot of catching up to do but we certainly see exports as a huge opportunity for organics from Ireland in all the foods that we make here.

I note 11% is the figure here. Is that a European figure?

Yes, 11%.

Ireland is not at that. What are we at?

Ireland is at 5.5%.

Okay, just to clarify that. Is Brazil on the organic list of 11 countries?

No.

I note that 5% of a product can be brought in now under the proposals, put into a EU product and it will still go under the EU tag. Is that correct?

Yes, if it is less than 5%. That would be things like salt or spices for example.

Is it meat?

No. It would be like ginseng or some kind of-----

Mr. McGee is saying it is not allowed in meat?

What does the Deputy mean?

Going by what I am looking at, a product less than 5% from another country can be put in. Can that product be meat?

It can be any agricultural product that is less than 5%.

So, it can be meat?

Yes, it can.

Okay. We can bring meat in from a third country under the European Court of Justice ruling. Is that it?

Meat can come into Europe already-----

I know that.

-----before this.

The raw materials of something being made can be 5% from a third country and it still gets the EU logo on it. Is that correct?

If the country is equivalent, yes.

In terms of the ECJ ruling, what are the downsides of it?

The ECJ ruling is helpful for the Commission to refine and simplify the regulations. I do not see a downside. It is actually just-----

Does Mr. McGee not think the ECJ ruling is leaving the gate open for more third countries?

No, I do not think so. The 11 countries are stated in the document. At the end of the day, the proposal from the Commission is to raise the bar in terms of what the requirements are to get equivalency status, and that is what is in annexe 7 of the proposal.

They are now proposing that in 2036 the 11 countries are going to be left on this list, instead of the end of 2026. Why is that? I note there is a thing about trade deals. What is the reason for that carrying on with the same story?

We have our own rules within the EU on organic production. There are other rules throughout the world in other countries. The EU has entered agreements with all these countries and the EU has deemed their production rules as equivalent to the EU rules. As Mr. McGee said, they are not the same but the EU would like to move towards compliance. That is where they are all the same.

To be clear, at the moment they are not the same but they are allowed in. Is that correct?

They are not 100% the exact same rules. However, there are a set of production rules to farm organic and the EU has discussed with these countries, reviewed the rules, reviewed the certification body and certification system and deemed them to be equivalent. They would like to move to compliance but that is a slow process. That is why the EU-----

Basically, Mr. Ryan is saying the EU is trying to get these countries over a period of time to come into line with the EU rules and at the moment they are not in line but are still going to get organic status in Europe. Is that fair to say?

It is actually a two-way street. There are countries that are not happy with some of the practices in Europe that would like our standards to be raised in other areas. It is definitely a two-way street.

Let us talk about the street that we are importing.

Yes, that is noted. Basically, yes, to get full agreement across all countries will take time. The Commission is looking for ten years. That has not been granted yet.

Does the Department have a list of the 11 countries and a list of what those 11 countries class as organic? I presume it does.

Yes, there are agreements laid out from the Commission in terms of what products can be imported.

I am on about the products. If the Department has that list of 11 countries and the list of what they claim to be covered under organic and what they are allowed to do, could that be forwarded to the committee?

Of course it can, no problem.

The witnesses talked about products coming in and the stringent checks. What percentage of the products coming from third countries is checked?

There is a 100% paper check.

No, no, no. I am talking about physical checks.

Before a product leaves a third country, all the paperwork must be gathered up.

I know that.

The certification body in that third country has to be satisfied that the product has all the paperwork and licensing, and came from or was processed in an organic farm. All of those activities have been licensed and have been traced. It is then up to every member state to decide in terms of the actual testing of those products. All those products then have to be imported through a border control point in every member state. Even before it arrives, the paperwork has to be sent.

I know about the paperwork, yes.

We are well aware of that. The EU has identified-----

I am asking one question. Of all the organic food that comes in from third countries, what percentage is checked by either Europe or the member state? That is all I am asking. I am talking about physically checked. I know about the paperwork and what Mr. Ryan is saying is 100% right. I am asking about the other part. What percentage is physically checked?

I do not have figures that give the exact percentage.

Would it be possible to get those figures for us?

Yes, of course.

We can get figures for what we are doing. We have figures ourselves. We have our own.

I am looking for the figures in Europe. It is just to know. I have a concern that Europe seems to be hell bent on doing deals with third countries. In my opinion they are closing their eyes. As has been said, we are giving countries time to come into the same level as member states. It would be great if the Department representatives could give to the Chair and secretariat of the committee the rules on the 11 countries so we can compare. I thank them for their time.

There is a physical check. All goods that come in are looked at. They may not be tested but they are looked at to see whether they are labelled correctly. We will not let a product into the country - for example, an organic product that arrives into a port, Dublin Airport or somewhere else through our border control points - unless it is physically inspected in respect of all the necessary labels and paperwork. I want to be clear about that.

Products are physically looked at. They do not just wheel in.

The thing we are most interested in is meat, chicken and beef. I am interested to know - I will speak for myself - the percentage that is physically checked coming in to both Europe and Ireland in relation to that.

I have one or two brief questions. Eleven third countries have been identified as equivalent. That is under a 2007 regulation, and now we are nearly 20 years on. It is proposed that the list would roll forward for the next number of years. If there is such a demand on organics, have any further countries qualified, or attempted to get qualified, over that period of almost 20 years? Can the officials give an indication on that? I am conscious that a vote has been called in the Dáil. The other question I wanted to clarify is in relation to the ECJ ruling, whereby third-country material cannot carry the European symbol and terms referring to organic production cannot be carried. It also states that such material is expected to carry its own equivalent logo, which would also refer to organic. Is there a bit of a conflict there in how to square that circle?

That is where the Commission is trying to square that circle but it is a complex area. It is trying to create a level playing field for European farmers. A logo from another country that describes something as organic is deemed to be okay, but that does not mean it will be deemed equivalent by the Commission. The other thing is this is still a proposal from the Commission. It is still being negotiated between the European Commission and the Presidency. It will also be negotiated between the Parliament and the Presidency. There are a lot of things to happen yet in this before the final draft is ready. We may see things like that change as we go over the next few months.

On the eleven countries-----

On the eleven countries, I am not sure. I will have to check with the Commission.

-----and the efforts to qualify others-----

I am not sure whether the Commission has looked for other countries. It certainly has not told me, but I will check that and see if it has.

Those were the questions I was keen to cover. Senator Boyhan-----

I will wait for the next session on bees. The Cathaoirleach might put me down for that.

We will finish up with this session and come back. To finish up on this business, we want to make a decision in relation to COM/2025/0780. Do members wish to defer scrutiny of this proposal to the next private meeting or are they happy to agree that it warrants no further scrutiny? It is agreed we defer to the next meeting. Before we suspend, Senator Daly will take the Chair.