OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Food Fermentation Cultures Association

EFFCA

The European Food Fermentation Cultures Association - EFFCA - was formed in 1992 and will focus ‎‎on Food Cultures‎ The vision of EFFCA is to support the growth and ‎promote the use of food cultures at global level. ‎The ‎‎mission of EFFCA is to promote and facilitate ‎the dialogue between economic operators, ‎regulatory ‎‎bodies and other relevant ‎organisations through various forums aiming at ‎promoting the development ‎‎of applications of ‎food cultures. ‎ Its tasks also include maintaining the latter’s ‎authorized applications through such actions as ‎will be ‎‎deemed appropriate. ‎ Another purpose of the association is to develop ‎actions to promote the industry’s image, its ‎products ‎‎and its companies so as to provide the ‎public with any information which could be useful ‎for a better ‎‎understanding of the positive role ‎played by the cultures in the food industry ‎worldwide. ‎

Lobbying Activity

Response to Towards a Circular, Regenerative and Competitive Bioeconomy

23 Jun 2025

The European Food and Fermentation Cultures Association (EFFCA) welcomes the Commissions initiative to update the EU Bioeconomy Strategy and strongly supports its ambition to promote a circular, regenerative and competitive bioeconomy. Microbial food cultures and fermentation processes are essential tools in this transition, delivering tangible environmental, economic and societal benefits across the food system and beyond. Fermentation is one of the most established, efficient and scalable biotechnologies. It plays a central role in sustainable food systems by supporting food safety, shelf-life extension, resource optimisation, and the valorisation of biomass. Microbial food cultures are live, active ingredients that contribute to flavour, texture, preservation and nutritional value in a wide variety of traditional and innovative foods, from cheese and yoghurt to plant-based products. They drive circularity, reduce food loss and waste, and offer nature-based solutions aligned with EU climate, biodiversity, health and agri-food policy goals. Despite their strategic importance, microbial food cultures remain largely invisible in many EU policy frameworks and underrepresented in innovation support and funding programmes. EFFCA urges the Commission to explicitly recognise fermentation and microbial food cultures as enabling technologies of the EU bioeconomy, deserving of dedicated support in research and development, industrial scale-up, infrastructure investment, and training and skills development. Regulatory bottlenecks are currently limiting the full contribution of microbial innovations. A persistent challenge is the legal uncertainty surrounding food cultures with bioprotective effect. While widely recognised as food ingredients under Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, some Member States interpret certain uses as falling under the Food Additives Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Such a shift would entail disproportionate pre-market authorisation requirements and EFSA evaluations, placing a heavy burden on the industry, fragmenting the internal market, and discouraging the use of effective, natural bioprotection tools that reduce food waste and improve food safety. EFFCA calls for clear and consistent recognition of these cultures as food ingredients. We also support the introduction of a voluntary labelling approach, such as protected by fermentation, to ensure transparency for consumers without triggering additive classification. Industry-developed standards and self-regulatory guidelines already ensure traceability, quality, and safety. Innovation in microbial strain development is also held back by the absence of a clear regulatory pathway for the deliberate release of food microorganisms improved through new genomic techniques (NGTs). These techniques, such as targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis, allow for precise, predictable improvements aligned with EU sustainability and health goals. A fit-for-purpose, product-based, and risk-proportionate framework is urgently needed to unlock this innovation potential and prevent the relocation of research, investment and talent outside the EU. EFFCA supports the Strategys priorities, including increasing the high-value use of biomass, improving circularity, supporting rural livelihoods, and enabling sustainable bio-based production. The revised strategy should ensure that microbial food cultures and fermentation technologies are fully integrated into relevant policy roadmaps, R&I priorities, funding programmes, and the EUs bioeconomy monitoring system. EFFCA and its members are committed to contributing technical expertise and sector-specific knowledge to support the Commission in shaping a science-based, innovation-driven and inclusive bioeconomy. We stand ready to collaborate to ensure that microbial food cultures and fermentation continue to advance Europes sustainability, resilience and competitiveness.
Read full response

Meeting with Sabine Pelsser (Head of Unit Health and Food Safety)

15 May 2025 · Presentation by EFFCA of their views regarding microbial food cultures.

Meeting with Giulia Del Brenna (Head of Unit Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs)

12 May 2025 · Microbial cultures

Response to Legislation for plants produced by certain new genomic techniques

3 Nov 2023

EFFCA The European Food and Fermentation (EFFCA) Cultures Association welcomes the initiative ‎of the Commission services to modernise the European GMO legislation. We recognize certain ‎improvements from the current state of play and some progress made towards a product-based ‎approach, which aligns with the long-standing call from academia and industries.‎ Regarding the main text:‎ While we acknowledge the distinction made between conventional-like products and others, we have ‎concerns regarding the measures for conventional-like NGT products. Despite the recognition that NGT ‎derived-plants could occur naturally or be produced by conventional breeding as stated in recital 14, ‎we believe that the proposed measures are discriminatory when compared to conventional products ‎or those listed in Annex I B to Directive 2001/18/EC, even if verified as equivalent. The administrative ‎verification procedure, B2B labelling requirements, and exclusion from organic production, in ‎particular, seem to lack a scientific basis, to impose significant administrative burdens, and risk of non-‎compliance, especially concerning imports from third countries creating a distortion of concurrence.‎ We wish to highlight that "declaration" and "verification" are being used interchangeably throughout ‎the proposal while targeting the same procedure, but we believe they carry distinct meanings.‎ The verification procedure, as opposed to notification, is perceived as complex and burdensome, ‎warranting further consideration.‎ Proper enforcement of labelling rules and potential national or individual non-compliant initiatives ‎such as "NGT-free" should be carefully addressed.‎ Regarding category 2 products, we believe the proposed measures resemble the current GMO ‎approach, which is not suitable. Due to high authorization costs and foreseen consumer rejection ‎based on unjustified negative perceptions, it is unlikely that a significant amount of these products ‎would enter the market. ‎ Concerning Annex I:‎ The criteria for equivalency listed should be considered as a minimum for plants and potentially other ‎organisms to be regulated in the future. Larger or more complex genomes (e.g., ploidy) should be ‎subject to additional considerations (e.g., increased thresholds), in order to benefit from the ‎regulation.‎ The phrase "in any DNA sequence sharing sequence similarity with the targeted site that can be ‎predicted by bioinformatic tools" requires clarity and refinement.‎ Point 3, regarding "insertion or substitution without interruption," needs clarification. An insertion of a ‎new coding section after a promoter should not be considered an interruption, as the coding section is ‎not interrupted.‎ The term "contiguous DNA sequence" necessitates a precise definition. Does it imply a single function? ‎Could it encompass a promoter from species A combined with a coding section from species B in the ‎same DNA sequence?‎ Point 5, concerning the "resulting DNA sequence," obtained following any other targeted ‎modification of any size, requires further elaboration. We understand "possibly" " in ‎ ‎(possibly with modifications as accepted under points (1) and/or (2)) in a species from the breeders ‎gene pool. as "not restricted to." Modifications as accepted under points 1 and/or 2.‎ Thank you for your attention to our concerns and recommendations.‎
Read full response