OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Rural Poultry Association

ERPA

ERPA represents European professional producers of traditional and free-range poultry.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Eric Sargiacomo (Member of the European Parliament)

9 Dec 2025 · Volaille

Response to Modification of rules on organic trade and simplification

18 Nov 2025

ERPA is the European association representing rural poultry producers in Europe, including the sectors and producers of organic eggs and poultry for meat. ERPA warmly thanks the European Commission and Commissioner Hansen for proposing to reopen the regulation on organic farming for targeted amendments, as the organic poultry sector needs this. Indeed, some of the new rules in the latest regulation have severely weakened these sectors, particularly in eggs, and are leading to many production stoppages. ERPA has been alerting the European Commission to this issue since 2024. ERPA emphasises that, if Europe wishes to enable these sectors to develop once again, while respecting the fundamentals of organic farming of course, then it is necessary to urgently change a few targeted rules, including: Allow feed at least 95% organic for all poultry ; Eliminate the downgrading of eggs after the use of allopathic treatments when the legal withdrawal period is 0 ; Delete deadlines for the use of organic chicks. All ERPA requests are detailed in the attached document.
Read full response

Meeting with Luis Carazo Jimenez (Head of Unit Agriculture and Rural Development)

29 Oct 2025 · Opening of the organic basic regulation and requests for simplification from the poultry sector

Response to Organic Production : amended list of products and substances authorised for use in organic productions

3 Sept 2025

ERPA, en tant que représentant des producteurs de volailles rurales dont biologiques en Europe, est très favorable à la proposition d'acte d'exécution de la Commission, et en particulier eu report de date concernant les produits de nettoyage-désinfection utilisables en bio. En effet, la liste de produits n'a pas été proposée et discutée à ce jour, alors qu'il faudra prévoir du temps pour que les opérateurs puissent discuter du sujet avec la Commission européenne et se préparent chacun à une nouvelle liste. De plus, il nous semblerait intéressant de réfléchir à ce que les parties A et C de l'ANNEXE IV indiquent plutôt une liste négative de substances qu'une liste positive, à voir en fonction des réflexions du groupe EGTOP.
Read full response

Meeting with Stefan Köhler (Member of the European Parliament)

2 Sept 2025 · Politischer Austausch

Rural poultry association urges cage ban exemptions for breeding stock

11 Jul 2025
Topic — This consultation addresses the modernisation of EU on-farm animal welfare standards.
Message — ERPA requests that cage bans exclude breeding stock to preserve genetic diversity. They seek a fifteen-year transition period for ending male chick culling. The association also demands identical welfare standards for all imported products.123
Why — Exemptions would prevent prohibitive investment costs that threaten the survival of small hatcheries.4
Impact — Non-EU exporters would lose market access if forced to meet identical welfare standards.5
Read full response

Meeting with Christophe Hansen (Commissioner) and

14 Apr 2025 · Poultry marketing standards, organic farming, CAP support and animal welfare

Meeting with Brigitte Misonne (Acting Director Agriculture and Rural Development)

14 Apr 2025 · Poultry marketing standards, organic farming, CAP support and animal welfare

Meeting with Benoit Cassart (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

7 Apr 2025 · Transport des animaux

Meeting with Valérie Hayer (Member of the European Parliament) and Eurogroup for Animals

27 Mar 2025 · Animal transport

Meeting with Olivér Várhelyi (Commissioner) and

13 Feb 2025 · Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and animal welfare

Meeting with Tilly Metz (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

16 Jan 2025 · Animal transport

Meeting with Eric Sargiacomo (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Dec 2024 · Europe's poultry meat sector

Rural poultry association demands exemptions from strict transport rules

11 Apr 2024
Topic — Revision of EU rules on animal welfare during transport for better protection.
Message — The association requests that transport time only includes actual travel, excluding loading and unloading phases. They also urge the EU to permit manual catching by the legs and maintain a seventy-two-hour transport window for day-old chicks.12
Why — Avoiding stricter density and crate height requirements prevents massive infrastructure costs for small-scale producers.3
Impact — Animal welfare advocates lose their push for shorter travel durations and stricter handling bans.4
Read full response

Response to Review of poultry marketing standards

16 May 2023

ERPA disagrees with the proposed deletion of the obligation of specific and independent inspections at all stages of production, with a frequency, in case of indications of the types of farming. These controls are necessary, useful, and important to verify the correct application of the Regulation and therefore to give confidence to consumers. It is of paramount importance to maintain this inspection requirement in the future implementing regulation as it is also the case for the EU organic farming regulation (Regulation 848/2018 Article 38.3 a verification of compliance at least once a year). The European rural poultry sector is convinced that referring to the regulation on official controls with a simple risk analysis would lead to an heterogenous application between Member States, which would therefore negatively affect the level playing field.
Read full response

Response to Review of egg marketing standards

16 May 2023

The European Rural Poultry Association (ERPA) fully supports the European Commission's objective of making the food system more sustainable and is convinced that marketing standards for agricultural products are an essential tool to this end. ERPA welcomes the text proposed by the European Commission regarding marketing standards for eggs. More specifically, the rural poultry sector is in favor of: The removal of the 16-week limit in case of confinement measures. It is positive to see that when confinement measures will be imposed on the basis of the EU legislation, for example to fight avian influenza outbreaks, eggs will still be allowed to be marketed as free-range eggs without a time limit. This is indeed important for the breeders concerned since, on the one hand, their production very often provides additional guarantees to consumers and, on the other hand, they have made significant investments in free-range systems. Consequently, they cannot bear the changes in the code and therefore, in their income because of a sanitary situation they are not responsible for. The authorization to use solar panels on free-range areas for laying hens, as it is already the case for broilers. This will allow to breeders to get a sustainable additional source of income and to contribute to the production of sustainable energy in Europe. It should however be noted that solar panels do not have the same advantages as trees that provide shade for animals. This is the reason why, ERPA considers that most of the land should remain grassy and wooded. Furthermore, the rural poultry sector stresses the importance of being reasonable in the development of solar panels to avoid greenwashing. ERPA means that the poultry activity must remain predominant over the energy production. In order to avoid any risk of drift, ERPA is in favour of establishing a maximum percentage of the free-range surface that could be used for energy production. ERPA is convinced that the proposed measures will be essential tools for a more environmentally friendly European food system as well as for improved consumer protection and information. Furthermore, ERPA calls to require, as with the organic farming regulation, an annual control of farms to verify the correct application of the criteria for all alternative farming systems: free-range eggs and barn eggs (codes 1 and 2). These controls should include verification of daily and not occasional use of open-air runs for free-range laying hens. It is important to add this requirement in the future delegated regulation and not to refer it to the regulation on official controls with a simple risk analysis which would prevent a good homogeneity of application between Member States. Finally, ERPA disagrees with the proposed change of the Spanish term for eggs code 2 since « Huevos de gallinas sueltas » does not properly inform consumers. The rural poultry sector proposes instead the following terms: "Gallinas encerradas en el gallinero" or "Gallinas confinadas en el gallinero".
Read full response

Response to Marking of eggs on farm as general rule

16 May 2023

The European Rural Poultry Association (ERPA) fully supports the marking of eggs at the production site. This is paramount to avoid the risk of fraud concerning the indication of the code on the eggshell. As rightly pointed out in the Recital 3 of the proposed Delegated Regulation, current rules under the Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 imply a certain risk of false marking, unintended or intended, as eggs from different farms and production systems can get mixed and mislabeled. Moreover, in the case of food safety incidents this could lead to problems of traceability. It is also important to give the possibility to Member States to exempt operators from this obligation to mark at the production site, but provided that the marking is carried out at the first packing center and with a solid traceability defined by clear and strict criteria (point 2a and Recital 4). The marking of eggs at the production site or at the first packing center under strict conditions will reinforce traceability along the chain and as a result, consumer protection.
Read full response

Response to Review of poultry marketing standards

16 May 2023

Committed to continuing to offer high quality products and to providing consumers with accurate information about the poultry meat they buy, the European Rural Poultry Association (ERPA) supports the proposed Delegated Regulation concerning poultry meat, and more specifically: the protection conferred to free-range farming by imposing the exclusive use of the 3 terms referring to free-range, namely "free-range", "traditional free-range", "free-range total freedom" the protection of the visuals/illustrations referring to free-range farming the maintenance of the rules attached to these 3 terms related to the age of the animals, stocking densities, surface area of the outdoor runs, etc the possibility for Member States to define in their legislation additional national technical measures going beyond the criteria of the optional reserved terms the obligation for products other than those included in Article 2 of the proposed Delegated Regulation to use names which do not mislead the consumer by allowing confusion with those referred to in the Article or with indications provided for in Article 10. The voluntary but exclusive use of the terms "free-range", "traditional free-range", "free-range total freedom" is of paramount importance since it will allow to keep supporting the development of the alternative poultry production. These products being more expensive, consumers have to be duly informed about the higher production methods under the legal requirements set by the EU marketing standards. By laying down clear and common rules well known by consumers, marketing standards will thus continue to provide better visibility to the extensive productions by making their specificities known and therefore to maintain, and hopefully increase their place on the market. Although the draft text does not protect anymore the terms Fed with%... and Extensive indoor, which we regret, the proposed consensus will nevertheless protect consumers against greenwashing as well as against the use of fanciful and misleading terms. Furthermore, ERPA calls on the European Commission for the terms 'free-range' and 'traditional free-range', to authorize, in the Annex, a double-start of 2 batches of young poultry in one common building, as a better measure for the environment. The current marketing standards for poultry meat provide with maximum indoor densities and stocking levels. ERPA requests a change in these standards for the start-up period of young poultry, which lasts up to 4 weeks. This period is very gas intensive in order to maintain an optimal temperature for the young birds growing inside the buildings. With the objective of saving this source of energy and improving the sustainability of this production, ERPA requests to have the possibility to double-start 2 batches of poultry in one building. This means to double the number of birds and the density in number of birds up to a maximum of 4 weeks in one building, while the other building on the same farm will be empty and will house half of the batch after a maximum period of 4 weeks. This is a common practice in other farming systems, especially in organic production, and does not affect the welfare of the animals since birds are young and the stocking rate in kg/m² is respected. The rural poultry sector shares common commitments with the European Commission for a more sustainable and local production, open-air and extensive farming, short supply chains, higher animal welfare, family farms and the territorial anchoring in rural areas, etc. The proposed delegated act can play a key role in achieving the objectives set by the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Green Deal.
Read full response

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

7 Feb 2023 · On-going revision of the EU marketing standards for poultry meat

Response to Use of veterinary medicinal products for diseases in terrestrial animals

2 Sept 2022

ERPA, the European Association representing rural poultry (www.erpa-ruralpoultry.eu), thanks the European Commission for this consultation. ERPA is in favour of vaccination against avian influenza, but stresses that this must be a complementary tool to a strict application of biosecurity and surveillance measures. At the same time, it is very important that this does not block exports, both within Europe and around the world. There is a lot to do on this topic. The surveillance plan for HPAI vaccination is essential but it will be very burdensome and costly, even more for small producers because it is not related to the size of the livestock. It is important that it is adapted to this type of production, in terms of frequency or number of analyses. There is also a strong risk that the laboratories will not have the capacity to manage all of these analyses, so it is important to review this part.
Read full response

Meeting with Norbert Lins (Member of the European Parliament, Committee chair)

17 Feb 2022 · Farm to Fork Strategy

Response to Revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products

15 Feb 2021

ERPA, the European Rural Poultry Association, welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the roadmap regarding the revision of EU marketing standards for agricultural products. Concerning poultry meat and eggs, we note that the recent evaluation of marketing standards proves the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and the EU added value of these texts. We underline that the current marketing standards for poultrymeat (Regulation 543/2008) and for eggs (Regulation 589/2008) have especially allowed: - a clear and uniform information for the consumers in Europe, with a guarantee of precise definitions of farming methods, without risk of confusion for consumers, - a control of the reality of the farming methods on the farms, concerning poultrymeat - the existence of a European reference about the farming methods for producers, giving a level playing field for all European producers, and making possible the identification of the types of poultry produced in Europe - the visibility of alternative farming methods which wouldn’t have been developed without these standards. As a result, marketing standards are of great importance for European poultry and eggs producers and consumers. It is therefore important to be cautious before considering changes to these texts. Thus, we are in favour of the option 2 from the inception impact assessment or maybe the option 3 but only with a few changes that do not call into question the development of alternative productions (we call for adding the mandatory marking of eggs on farm and an annual control for all alternative farming methods for eggs). For the revision of the marketing standards, we think that it is very important that the EC plans for each sector (poultrymeat on the one hand and eggs on the other hand): • technical workshops with selected experts and stakeholders, so that even small alternative productions are taken into account, • a definition of “sustainability considerations” which could be added to the marketing standards, • an impact assessment of the concrete changes envisaged for each text, studying in particular the impact on alternative productions and on information and guarantees given to consumers, • to consider maintaining control requirements in these texts, as it was done for organic Regulation. We think this is important for the credibility of the farming methods.
Read full response

Meeting with Maciej Golubiewski (Cabinet of Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski)

2 Feb 2021 · Opening speech, Online ERPA Conference

Meeting with Janusz Wojciechowski (Commissioner) and

14 Oct 2020 · CAP, animal welfare

Meeting with Lukas Visek (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

24 Sept 2020 · Sustainable poultry production

Response to Organics production rules

2 Dec 2019

ERPA représente les producteurs de volailles biologiques en Europe, utilisant des volailles colorées à croissance lente, dans des exploitations familiales à taille humaine. Chapitre II Article 15(3)(b) : ERPA regrette très fortement la suppression des tailles limites de bâtiments en volailles de chair qui existent dans la réglementation actuelle. Cela va entrainer une industrialisation de la production bio, et mettre à mal son image. Article 15(2)(c) : il est regrettable que les vérandas aient été encouragées jusqu’à présent, dans l’intérêt du bien-être des volailles, et que leur surface ne soit plus prise en compte de la densité intérieure. Annexe 1 1. Parentaux : il est regrettable que l’acte d’exécution impose un accès plein air des parentaux, alors qu’un élevage avec véranda aurait été possible. Cette obligation va limiter le développement de la production de poussins biologiques : - Arrêt de la biodiversité des croisements utilisés : étant donné le petit marché que cela représente, les accouveurs qui produiront des poussins bio ne pourront dédier qu’un seul croisement à cette production, ce qui mettra fin à la grande biodiversité qui existe dans certains pays. C’est très dommage pour une production dont l’objectif est de préserver l’environnement et la biodiversité. - Risques sanitaires : les parentaux sont à la base de la production d’un très grand nombre de poussins. L’accès au plein air peut augmenter le risque de contamination par certains pathogènes, et surtout de dissémination dans la descendance, ce qui va à l’encontre des réglementations sanitaires européennes et nationales, et des pratiques actuelles qui sont très strictes à ce sujet. 2. Les tailles de perchoirs et plateformes sont totalement inadaptées aux espèces autres que Gallus gallus. Voici à quoi correspond la surface de plateformes dans un bâtiment de 400 m² : - dindes : 25% de surface de bâtiment - Canard Barbarie mâle : 32% de surface de bâtiment - Canard Barbarie femelle: 40% de surface de bâtiment -> Pourquoi les canards de Barbarie doivent-ils avoir des perchoirs alors que les autres canards n’ont pas cette exigence et qu’un canard ne se perche pas ? Comment expliquer que 30 % du bâtiment des canards de Barbarie devra avoir des plateformes alors qu’en production conventionnel, les plateformes et caillebottis sont supprimés pour une meilleure image de l’élevage ? -> Comment expliquer que 25 % du bâtiment des dindes devra être équipé de plateformes alors qu’en production conventionnel les plateformes et caillebottis sont supprimés pour une meilleure image de l’élevage ? 3. La densité intérieure en volailles de chair n’est fixée qu’en kg/m² alors que dans la réglementation actuelle elle l’est aussi en nombre de volailles/m². Cela pose question quant à la contrôlabilité de ce critère et aux dérives possibles. 4. Il est dommage que l’âge des « jeunes volailles » visées par la dérogation possible de 5 % d’aliment non bio n’ait pas été défini dans la future réglementation, car il risque d’y avoir encore des distorsions entre États-membres. Chapitre VI Mesures de transition Une période de transition devrait être fixée pour les exploitations dans les États-membres qui n’ont pas de règles nationales pour les poulettes ou qui produisent des poulettes conformément à la réglementation biologique actuelle. Il est en effet impossible, dans ces états-membres, que les filières arrivent à avoir le nombre suffisant de bâtiments conformes à la nouvelle réglementation dès le 1er janvier 2021, alors que l’acte d’exécution n’est pas encore officiellement publié, et que la nouvelle réglementation impose un accès au plein air qui n’était pas obligatoire jusqu’à présent. Cela va nécessiter quelques années pour que l’ensemble des volumes de poulettes bio puisse être produit selon les nouvelle règles de production, et est un risque de crise majeur. La future réglementation doit permettre cette transition.
Read full response

Response to Rules for establishments keeping terrestrial animals and hatcheries and their traceability

2 May 2019

ERPA, the European rural poultry association, have noticed that even if the Animal Health Law makes no difference between professional and non-professional operators regarding the requirements on the registration of operators and traceability of animals, the registration and traceability up to non-professional operators is not always well done / done homogeneously, in the different European countries. We believe that the entire poultry sector should be well supervised and all movements of animals must be registered, including up to farmyards/final buyers of live poultry, in all European countries. But for the non-professionals farmers (who own poultry for their own consumption for example), if the compulsory registration system is too complicated -as it is the case in some countries, like the one asked for professionals, with an administrative authorization asked-, there is a high risk that this will not be done properly. As a consequence, if we do not set up a simple and practical system of data transmission up to final poultry buyers, the traceability of poultry may be lost and parallel/illegal activities may develop. That is why ERPA think that the European Commission should recommend a standard system for all Member-States. For this, ERPA have designed two standard documents that would allow the homogenization of the implementation of the regulation: a traceability form & a registration form for non-professional operators, which would need to be filled when selling or purchasing live poultry, for any movement of animals, in order to facilitate the traceability of live poultry to non-professional farming. This topic is crucial to lend credibility to the live poultry production that we represent.
Read full response

Response to Amendment of marketing standards for free range eggs

2 Sept 2017

ERPA is the European Rural Poultry Association. ERPA represents the interests of the EU’s free range and slow-growing poultry producers, for the production of eggs and poultry meat. The duration of the HPAI 2016/17 episode in Europe highlighted the difficulties in applying the marketing standards for eggs when poultry confinement imposed by health authorities lasts more than 12 weeks. As a representative of European rural poultry in Europe, and therefore of a part of the production of organic and free-range eggs, we welcome the Commission's proposal to change marketing standards on this point, as this results in complicated situations for free range producers, and in a non-homogeneous way across member states. Indeed, the loss of the "free range" mention leads to economic problems: less valuation of eggs while the cost of production for producers remains the same, and also technical problems: change of the code on eggs while the status of the farm has not really changed, changes in the packaging of eggs, etc. We think that it is necessary to protect the producers concerned, who have made important investments to produce quality eggs, while clearly informing consumers so that producers and free-range production remain credible. And not all producers have the technical or economic opportunity to build winter gardens to protect hens. So, we welcome the Commission's proposal to extend the period of derogation, and to specify its application at the level of each flock, but we consider that this proposal must be improved by: - adding more weeks: 24 weeks would be better, and 20 weeks would be the minimum target instead of 16 weeks - specifying that it is valid only in case of HPAI - requesting point of sale information to consumers, explaining that hens are temporarily housed.
Read full response

Response to Evaluation of marketing standards [Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013]

27 Jul 2017

ERPA is the European Rural Poultry Association. ERPA represents the interests of the EU’s free range and slow-growing poultry producers, for the production of eggs and poultry meat. Our members are concerned by two Regulations: • Commission Regulation (EC) No. 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat • Commission Regulation (EC) No. 589/2008 of 23 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs. Concerning the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 543/2008: it defines conditions of use of indications of the type of farming on the labeling of poultry meat in Articles 11-12-13 and Annex V. This text is very important for the poultry sector and for clear information for consumers : it has allowed a clear and harmonized development of alternative productions in Europe for 20 years. Today, alternative poultry are a significant part of European production, with farming and varying quantities depending on the Member-States: - b) “Extensive indoor (barn-reared)” (Scharrel) mainly in Netherlands (about 10 millions) - c) “Free range” mainly in United Kingdom (about 28 millions) and in Germany - d) “Traditional free range” and e) “Free range - total freedom” mainly in Belgium, Portugal and France (130 millions of Traditional free range Label Rouge/PGI poultry in France produced by about 5000 producers, half of French poultry producers) - organic (excluded from Regulation 543/2008). It is very important to maintain all these points of this Regulation (Articles 11-12-13 and Annex V), to continue to have harmonized information for consumers and equity between all European producers. ERPA considers that only minor adaptations could be made, but they should not undermine the principles expressed and must respect the categories of type of farming already defined. For example, slow growth = average daily gain of 35 gram/day maxi for broilers of minimum 70 days, and is not a term that shoul be used for all types of differenciated poultry. Concerning the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 589/2008, the obligation to indicate the type of farming with the codes, and the current definitions, are essential to have a good segmentation. These points of this text must be maintained.
Read full response

Meeting with Cristina Rueda Catry (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan), Tom Tynan (Cabinet of Commissioner Phil Hogan)

25 Feb 2015 · Nouveau règlement sur l'agriculture biologique et ses conséquences pour la production de volailles biologiques; termes réservés de qualité en volailles de chair