Organic seal

An organic seal is a seal of quality and approval with which products from organic farming are identified.

Authorization to use a seal is regulated by the publisher and is linked to compliance with certain standards and requirements. Compliance with the criteria by the producers is to be guaranteed by a documentation obligation as well as regular taking and examination of samples. In the EU , compliance with the regulations for all organic products is monitored by the responsible organic inspection body , and if an association seal is used, it is additionally - or exclusively - by the respective cultivation association .

Europe

Protected term organic

The term organic (to "Organic Agriculture") is a by the EC Organic Regulation EU protected term . The same applies to the terms from controlled organic cultivation and eco . Products that are described as organic must meet the criteria of the EC organic regulation, but do not necessarily have to be labeled with the EU organic seal. Organic products have to meet food law standards that go beyond the requirements of conventional products.

European organic label

Organic seal of the European Union to be
introduced on July 1st, 2010

In July 2010, a binding new organic seal was introduced across the EU (also known as the EU organic logo ), which identifies organic food produced in accordance with EU law . The uniformity is intended to secure a broad market - even non-EU countries are now aligning their regulations with the food law of the European organic label.

The EU organic label has established itself in many EU member states. In Germany , until the mandatory labeling from July 1, 2012, it was used relatively little or usually in combination with the German seal due to the greater awareness of the state German seal and the logos of the cultivation associations .

In October 2018 it became known that the trademark protection for the EU organic logo had expired.

criteria

The EU organic seal identifies products that at least meet the requirements of the EU organic regulation.

Accordingly, foods marked with the seal, etc. a.

• not exposed to ionizing radiation for conservation purposes
• are not produced by or with genetically modified organisms
• not with use of synthetic pesticides are produced
• not with the aid of readily soluble mineral fertilizers are produced
• contain no more than 5% conventionally produced ingredients (limited to a list of expressly permitted raw materials)
• does not contain any sweeteners or stabilizers or synthetic colors, preservatives or flavor enhancers
• Contains only vegetable thickeners, raising agents or emulsifiers listed in a positive list.

Further requirements:

• The import of raw materials and products from third countries is regulated and strictly controlled on a batch basis.
• Crop rotations (two-, three- and four-field farming) must be designed to be varied.
• Minimum stable and free areas are specified.
• Animals are to be fed with organically produced feed without the addition of antibiotics and performance enhancers.

In exceptional cases - with verifiably incidental and technically unavoidable influences - a GMO content up to the threshold value of 0.9% does not prevent labeling.

Differentiation from national seals and association seals

In some European countries, including Germany, there are state seals. Because the state seals are older and sometimes better known than the European one, they can also be used to label organic food.

In addition, there are private labels that go beyond the requirements of the EU Organic Regulation and in some cases have stricter requirements. These include the standards of the cultivation associations Biokreis , Bioland , Demeter and Naturland .

Evaluation in a Swiss label comparison

Evaluation of the EU organic label in a Swiss label comparison

The Swiss Foundation for Practical Environmental Protection ( PUSCH ) compared supports u. a. from WWF Switzerland , Helvetas and SKS 32 important food labels there with regard to sustainability and rated the EU organic seal as "conditionally recommended" like the corresponding French state seal Agriculture Biologique . The report put them in the last place; the first eight places went to Swiss labels. The report criticizes the EU regulation that (quote) "There are no requirements with regard to overall operation, ecological compensation areas, climate protection and social conditions. Furthermore, fertilizer use, crop rotation, consideration of valuable protected areas and animal welfare are only partially regulated." The evaluation of the label is justified by the report (quote): "The EU organic regulation scores worse than other organic standards, as it makes few or no requirements in the areas of irrigation, biodiversity, climate and social issues. Animal welfare and aquaculture products the criteria are a bit stricter. " The lack of meaningfulness to the criteria social and fairness or management (with "training of licensees") is explained by the nature of the organic label as such without function as a social or fair trade label or as a brand of a private licensing system.

precursor

Bio-Siegel of the European Union
German version, 2000 to June 2010

In March 2000 the European Commission adopted a logo with the inscription Organic Farming - EC Control System according to the, now superseded, Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic production and labeling of organic products . Producers were able to use the label defined therein on a voluntary basis if their farming practices and their products complied with the relevant EU regulations.

The use of the community emblem was regulated in Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/92 of the European Commission. The 'EU organic label' contained a text and was therefore published in all EU official languages and in different versions; in German, the terms organic farming and organic farming were permitted.

Germany

State organic seal

The German state organic seal was
introduced in September 2001

In September 2001, the German state eco-label was introduced. It is a hexagonal, green, black and white symbol that can be used in Germany to identify foodstuffs and other agricultural products that meet the criteria of the EC organic regulation. Since 2012, the use of the EU organic label is mandatory, provided that an agricultural product as "organic", "eco" or similar.. Placed on the market is; In addition, the eco-label, which is still known to consumers, may be used after registering with the BLE . Bringing agricultural products with the eco-label or similar misleading presentation on the market without meeting the requirements is a criminal offense.

In December 2010 3,803 companies used it on 61,744 products, in August 2017 4,985 companies used it on 77,342 products and in April 2020 5,615 entrepreneurs used it on 84,291 products.

The Swiss Foundation Pusch, supported by WWF Switzerland , Helvetas and SKS, evaluated the EU label as "conditionally recommendable" in a comparison in 2010 and 2015.

Association seal

The organic seals of the production associations mark products which, beyond the minimum standards of the EC organic regulation , meet the stricter provisions of the respective association.

rating

In 2015, the Swiss NGOs Stiftung Pusch, WWF Switzerland, Helvetas and Stiftung für Konsumentenschutz (SKS) evaluated German association seals that were important on the Swiss food market (see labels of EU countries in Switzerland ):

Evaluation of the Demeter seal , highly recommended

Demeter stands for biodynamically produced food. In Switzerland, the producing farms must also be Bio Suisse certified, which means that the products achieve above-average results in many areas for domestic products. The animals have daily exercise and largely enjoy group housing (exception: cattle). Since Demeter International's guidelines for imported products are less strict than the Bio Suisse requirements, the label does not appear in the highest evaluation category.

Evaluation of the Naturland seal , highly recommended

Naturland and Bioland are the counterparts to Bio Suisse in Germany. The regulations are well above those of the EU organic regulation. Naturland has high social requirements for southern products. Naturland's requirements for aquaculture are particularly worth mentioning, where the label achieved the highest number of points. There is a deduction because air transport is not clearly regulated and no specific measures to maintain biodiversity are required.

Evaluation of the Bioland seal , recommended

Bioland and Naturland are the counterparts to Bio Suisse in Germany. The regulations are well above those of the EU organic regulation. They guarantee all animal species constant access. The heating of greenhouses is regulated. There are mainly deductions in the areas of management, climate and biodiversity. Bioland does not certify any southern products and is available under the Alnatura brand .

German association seals, logos

• 

  Biocircle

• 

  Bioland

• 

  Biopark

• 

  Demeter

• 

  Ecovin

• 

  Gaa

• 

  Naturland

Regional organic seal

Organic symbol Baden-Wuerttemberg

The organic signs Baden-Wuerttemberg should mark produced in Baden-Wuerttemberg organic food.

The Bavarian organic seal

The Bavarian organic seal was introduced in 2015 and is a seal of quality and approval for products from organic farming whose quality criteria are higher than those of the EC organic regulation. The quality and origin requirements are based on the four Bavarian organic farming associations (Biokreis, Bioland, Demeter and Naturland). All raw materials used must come from Bavaria , all production and processing steps must take place in Bavaria without any gaps.

Comparison of organic seals

ingredients

criteria	EU organic seal	Biocircle	Bioland	Demeter	Naturland	Bavarian organic seal
Ecological origin	95%	95%	95%	95%	95%	95%
Dyes	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Flavor enhancers	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Artificial flavors	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Natural flavours	allowed	allowed	allowed	not allowed	allowed	allowed
Nitrite curing salt	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	allowed	allowed
Carrageenan	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	allowed

Animal husbandry and feeding

criteria	EU organic seal	Biocircle	Bioland	Demeter	Naturland	Bavarian organic seal
Pig farming area (m 2 / animal, fattening pigs)	Stable area 0.8 - 1.2 m 2 outside area 0.6 - 1.0 m 2	Stable area 0.8 - 1.5 m 2 external area 0.6 - 1.2 m 2	Stable area 0.8 - 1.2 m 2 outside area 0.6 - 1.0 m 2	Stable area 0.8 - 1.2 m 2 outside area 0.6 - 1.0 m 2	Stable area 0.8 - 1.5 m 2 external area 0.6 - 1.2 m 2	Stable area 0.8 - 1.2 m 2 outside area 0.6 - 1.0 m
Number of pig keeping (per ha / y)	14 fattening pigs	10 fattening pigs	10 fattening pigs	10 fattening pigs	10 fattening pigs	10 fattening pigs
Cow husbandry area (m 2 / animal, dairy cows)	Stable area 6 m 2 outside area 4.5 m 2	Stable area 6 m 2 outside area 4.5 m 2	Stable area 6 m 2 outside area 4.5 m 2	Stable area 6 m 2 outside area 4.5 m 2	Stable area 6 m 2 outside area 4.5 m 2	Stable area 6 m 2 outside area 4.5 m 2
Number of cow husbandry (per ha)	2 dairy cows	2 dairy cows	2 dairy cows	2 dairy cows	2 dairy cows	2 dairy cows
Cow trainer	partially allowed Note 1	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Dehorning	allowed	allowed	allowed	not allowed	allowed	allowed
Area chicken farming	up to 6 animals per m 2	up to 6 animals per m 2	up to 6 animals per m 2	up to 6 animals per m 2	up to 6 animals per m 2	up to 6 animals per m 2
Number of chicken keeping (per ha)	230 laying hens 580 broilers	140 laying hens 280 broilers	140 laying hens 280 broilers	140 laying hens 280 broilers	140 laying hens 280 broilers	140 laying hens 280 broilers
Genetically modified feed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Conventional compound feed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Fish meal	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	allowed (only for feeding young poultry and pigs)	allowed
Silage feed	allowed	allowed (not all year round & only partially)	allowed (not all year round & only partially)	allowed (not all year round & only partially)	allowed (not all year round & only partially)	allowed (not all year round & only partially)
Purchase of feed	allowed, max. 80%	allowed, max. 50%	allowed, max. 50%	allowed, max. 50%	allowed, max. 50%	allowed, max. 50%
Length of animal transport	under 6 hours	Max. 4 hours & max. 200km	Max. 4 hours & max. 200km	Max. 200km	Max. 4 hours & max. 200km	under 6 hours
Drifting with electrical surges	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Sedatives	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Castration of male piglets without anesthesia	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	allowed

^{Note 1} Banned in Germany since the end of 2010, still allowed in some EU countries

Fertilizers, pesticides and farming

criteria	EU organic seal	Biocircle	Bioland	Demeter	Naturland	Bavarian organic seal
Synthetic plant protection products	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Blood meal	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Animal meal	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Bone meal	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
guano	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed
Spinosad	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	allowed (only on request in individual cases)	allowed
Pyrethroids	allowed	allowed	not allowed	not allowed	not allowed	allowed
Copper-based pesticides	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed
Sulfur based pesticides	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed
organic nitrogen fertilizer	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed	allowed
Management form	ecological and conventional	only ecological	only ecological	only ecological	only ecological	only ecological

Austria

State AMA organic seal

Red and white AMA organic seal with indication of origin

Black and white AMA organic seal without indication of origin

The Austrian state AMA organic seal is a trademark of Agrarmarkt Austria . It is administered and controlled by her. The new AMA organic seal guideline has been in effect since January 1, 2014, and has developed the former AMA organic seal into an organic quality seal. It is a protected, independent seal of quality that is awarded to organically produced food that exceeds the legal requirements in terms of quality. The AMA organic seal is available in two versions, with and without an indication of the origin.

The focus of labeled products is on fresh products such as milk and dairy products, fruit and vegetables, eggs, meat and meat products including poultry as well as bread and pastries.

The seal bearer is the Republic of Austria, represented by Agrarmarkt Austria Marketing. Licensees are producers, processing companies and marketers of organically produced products.

Indication of origin

With the red and white seal with the indication of origin "Austria", all organic raw materials that determine the value come exclusively from Austria. This also applies to processed foods that consist of more than one ingredient. Organic ingredients for such organic foods may only come from another country in exceptional cases - for example, if an organic ingredient is not produced in Austria or is not produced in market-relevant quantities. Even then, these organic ingredients can only make up a third of the product. "Classics" are organic bananas or organic strawberries in organic fruit yoghurt or the organic pepper in organic sausage. If this exception is used, the origin must be marked.

The black and white seal without indication of origin does not restrict the place of treatment and processing or the origin of the organic raw materials.

conditions

The red-white-red AMA organic seal is awarded to foods that meet the provisions and quality requirements of the AMA organic seal guideline in the currently applicable version.

For agricultural production, the minimum requirements of the EC Organic Regulation and the Implementing Regulation (EC) 889/2008 as well as any further criteria of organic associations apply.

The AMA organic seal guideline applies to processing and trade. It lays down requirements for treatment and processing, for slaughterhouses and cutting plants, packing stations, direct marketers and the food trade - which go beyond the minimum requirements of the EU. The EU organic regulation allows organic labeling for composite foods if 95 percent of the ingredients come from organic agriculture. The AMA requires 100 percent organic ingredients for agricultural raw materials. Monoproducts (i.e. meat, milk, eggs or fruit and vegetables) with the AMA organic seal must be one hundred percent organic.

The AMA guideline defines quality criteria and requirements for “good manufacturing practice” and hygiene standards; chemical, microbiological and sensory must meet these requirements. For example, a guaranteed beef maturation of at least nine days is required for precious parts. For dairy products, the highest quality level according to the Austrian Food Book and the first quality class according to the AMA quality assessment scheme are required. This is checked through regular product analyzes.

The AMA organic seal imposes restrictions on additives. Around a quarter of the additives, the use of which is permitted by the EC organic regulation, are prohibited in AMA organic seal products. The long-term goal of the AMA is to further reduce the number of permitted additives.

There are also requirements for packaging: no packaging material containing chlorine may be used if it could come into contact with organic food.

Control system

In agriculture, organic inspection bodies check at least once a year. The processors:

• ongoing in-house controls and documentation by the company (product analyzes, HACCP, good manufacturing practice)
• External controls by independent organic inspection bodies at least once a year
• Over-controls by the AMA (control of control)

Example organic milk :

• Farmer: organic feed (agricultural biological management of the forage areas), housing conditions (group housing, etc.), stable control
• Transport: separation of organic milk from conventional milk (separate chambers)
• Dairy: separation between conventional and organic milk, hygiene, HACCP, laboratory tests, proper labeling

Association seal Bio Austria

Bio Austria

In addition to the state AMA organic seal, there is also a seal from the Bio Austria cultivation association , whose guidelines sometimes go beyond the state guidelines.

Switzerland

Sources / references see Weblinks > Switzerland

Organic labels in Switzerland

The Pusch Foundation, WWF Switzerland , Helvetas and the Foundation for Consumer Protection (SKS ) last assessed the 31 most important labels on the Swiss food market with regard to sustainability in 2010 and 2015 (2010: 32 labels) and published the rating in a guide. You want to achieve objective information and orientation for consumers and promote the market transparency of label products and the improvement of label systems.

Only food labels were evaluated that cover more than one of the assessment areas and are present throughout Switzerland or in large parts of Switzerland. The rating therefore does not take into account any labels of origin (e.g. Suisse Garantie ) or impact labels (e.g. CO2 ). However, labels that are not organic labels were also evaluated (e.g. IP-Suisse ).

EU labels, labels of the EU countries in Switzerland

The German labels Demeter (158 points) and Naturland (144 points) were rated as very recommendable (second quality area of ​​the rating) , as recommended the German label Bioland (125 points) and the Dutch UTZ Certified (120 points).

The EU label and the state organic labels corresponding to the EU criteria - as consequently u. a. also the German state organic seal , in the evaluation the French state Agriculture Biologique - landed in the 2015 ranking with 83 points in the very last place of the conditionally recommendable :

In the background report 2015 labels for food :

The EU regulation prohibits genetically modified organisms, the use of pesticides and promotes the careful use of natural resources. Overall, however, the requirements are significantly less strict than those of organic association labels such as Bio Suisse. There are no requirements with regard to overall company character, ecological compensation areas, climate protection and social conditions. In addition, fertilizer use, crop rotation, consideration of valuable protected areas and animal welfare are only partially regulated. Overall, there is a lack of concrete measures to ensure targeted implementation.

Evaluation criteria

The labels were assessed in the following areas:

• Management - compliance with laws, management systems, training, impact monitoring
• Ecology and social affairs - regulations for dealing with:
  • water
  • ground
  • biodiversity
  • climate
  • Animal welfare
  • Social, fairness
• Processes and control - label management, transparency, creation of criteria, independence, control, scope.

The criteria catalog was based on the criteria for the evaluation of the food labels from 2010 by WWF Switzerland , Swiss Animal Welfare STS and the Foundation for Consumer Protection SKS . In addition, current developments and findings from research, practice and politics. The criteria were coordinated with benchmark criteria from the International Trade Center ITC , the Society for International Cooperation GIZ and the ISEAL Alliance , the global membership association for sustainability standards, in order to ensure the relevance of the criteria in an international context.

Development of the criteria catalog

The basis for the criteria catalog was formed by the evaluation criteria of WWF / SKS / STS from 2010, which at that time were defined and weighted in a standardized process by around 100 experts. The experts came from national and international research institutes, NGOs and federal offices. People who were operationally active in label organizations were deliberately not approved as experts. Detailed information on the creation of the 2010 criteria can be found in the 2010 background report. The evaluation criteria from 2010 were revised in 2015, taking into account current research findings and advice from experts.

The most important studies included in the new evaluation criteria:

• Sustainable Standard Comparison Tool SSCT of the ISEAL Alliance , the International Trade Center ITC and the German Society for International Cooperation GIZ , 2014
• Credibility criteria of the ISEAL Alliance , the global membership association for sustainability standards
• Basic Indicators of the Committee on Sustainability Assessment COSA
• SAFA Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture System Guidelines of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
• Best Practice Guideline for Agriculture and Value Chains of the Sustainable Organic Action Network SOAAN , V1.0, 2013
• Certification Assessment Tool CAT of the WWF
• Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative GSSI , 2013

Evaluation criteria in detail

1 management

• Compliance with local, regional and national laws
• Maintaining the ecological and social functions of the area where agricultural production takes place
• Regular training and further education for licensees
• Achieving the intended effect

2 Ecology and Social Affairs

2.1 water

• Conservation of natural water resources
• Prevention of pollution of ground and surface waters by chemical-synthetic pesticides, oil, plastic, waste or sewage
• Balanced nutrient balance of waters

2.2 soil

• Maintaining soil substance and soil fertility by avoiding erosion, structural changes, compaction and salinization
• Maintaining soil fertility through sufficient humus substance and avoiding chemical-synthetic pesticides, heavy metal pollution, monocultures and acidification

2.3 Biodiversity

• Preservation of habitat and biodiversity and their networking through:
• Structural diversity and networking elements
• Curb further expansion of agriculture and forestry
• Extensive forms of farming
• Avoidance of over-fertilization through a suitable number of animals per area, combined with
• Own production of feed

2.4 Climate

• Energy efficiency and / or avoidance of high CO ₂ emissions in production and processing through:
• Use of efficient machines and new technologies in vehicles, in heating
• Greenhouses, processing processes etc.
• No synthetic fertilizers and pesticides
• Short transport routes, ban on air transport, no use of synthetic refrigerants, little use of packaging, etc.
• Preservation of natural carbon stores such as forest, bush, savannah, peat soils, raised bogs or wetlands
• Avoidance of climate pollution through emissions of air polluting substances and greenhouse gases (fine dust, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide)

2.5 Animal welfare (only in the animal products product group )

• Animal-friendly husbandry that ensures the health and well-being of the animals
• Avoidance of stressful situations during transport and slaughter
• Animal reproduction in which animal welfare is sufficiently taken into account
• Appropriate animal breeding methods that take animal welfare into account

2.6 Social standards and society

• High social standards in production, processing and trading companies that avoid exploitation of workers, child labor and dangerous working conditions
• Avoiding the prophylactic use of antibiotics or coccidiostats in animal husbandry, which lead to resistant pathogens and diseases in animals and humans
• No additives or processing aids

3 processes and control

3.1 Label guidance

• Comprehensive consideration of sustainability aspects in the label guidelines
• Transparent business structures and participatory stakeholder process within the label organization

3.2 Transparency

• Transparency of the content criteria and the control procedure for the consumer, which supports the credibility
• Transparency for consumers through the same level of requirements under one label
• Clear and verifiable guidelines that enable credible control of compliance

3.3 Development of the label requirements

• Proactive consultation of the relevant stakeholders
• Clearly and specifically formulated guidelines for targeted implementation
• Frequent and regular updating of the guidelines, which allows adaptation to new knowledge
• Common understanding of label owners and licensees about the implementation of the guidelines
• Increasing efforts of the companies to fulfill the environmental services

3.4 Independence

• Independence between the awarding authority, user and control body to avoid bias when awarding the label

3.5 Control and Certification

• Regular checks, at least once a year
• Unannounced controls in animal husbandry
• Certification following the inspection

3.6 Scope

• Complete coverage of the value chain
• Ensuring traceability back to the producer in order to gain the trust of consumers
• Label guidelines apply to all production branches of the company (overall company)

Ranking 2015

Excellent (200 - 160 points)

• Delinat - 171 points
• Natura-Beef Bio - 170 points
• Naturaplan ( Coop ) - 168 points
• KAGfreiland - 166 points
• Bio natur plus ( Manor ) - 165 points
• Organic pasture beef ( Migros ) - 163 points
• Bud Bio and Bud Bio Suisse - 161 points

Highly recommended (159 - 130 points)

• Fidelio - 159 points
• Demeter - 158 points
• Max Havelaar Cocoa - 144 points
• Naturland - 144 points
• Claro fair trade - 141 points
• Migros Bio - 141 points
• Max Havelaar - 138 points
• Bio Organic ( Lidl ) - 136 points

Recommended (129 - 100 points)

• Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) - 129 points
• Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) - 126 points
• Natura Beef - 126 points
• Bioland - 125 points
• UTZ Certified - 120 points
• Agri Natura ( own brand of Volg based on IP-Suisse) - 119 points
• Naturafarm ( Coop ) - 119 points
• IP-Suisse - 117 points
• Nature Suisse ( Aldi Suisse's own brand for IP-Suisse products) - 117 points
• Rainforest Alliance - 117 points
• TerraSuisse ( Migros' own brand for IP-Suisse products) - 117 points

Conditionally recommendable (99 - 60 points)

• Natur Aktiv ( Aldi ) - 98 points
• Friend of the Sea - 94 points
• Spar Natur Pur ( Spar ) - 92 points
• Agriculture Biologique (AB) - 83 points
• EU organic label - 83 points

Comparison of Bio Suisse and EU Bio ratings

Evaluation of the Knospe Bio / Knospe Bio Suisse label 161 points, excellent	Evaluation of the EU organic label and the corresponding country label 83 points, conditionally recommended - the last in the ranking
The Bio Suisse bud marks organic products made in accordance with Bio Suisse guidelines. The same guidelines apply to domestic and foreign products, which go well beyond the legal requirements. Domestic products are highlighted with the Swiss cross in the label. The label achieves above-average results in all assessment areas and product ranges because it has high to very high requirements in the environmental areas of water, soil, biodiversity and climate as well as in the areas of animal welfare and social issues.	The EU organic label is the European symbol for organic food that has been produced in accordance with the EU organic regulation. The EU organic regulation performs worse than other organic standards because it has few or no requirements in the areas of irrigation, biodiversity, climate and social issues. The criteria for animal welfare and aquaculture products are somewhat stricter.

Image examples from other countries

Examples of the organic label Australia, France, Japan, Canada, Netherlands, USA

• 

  Australia: Australian Certified Organic

• 

  Australia: NASAA Certified Organic

• 

  France: Agriculture Biologique

• 

  Japan: JAS Organic

• 

  Canada: Canada Organic / Biologique Canada

• 

  Netherlands: EKO

• 

  USA: USDA

See also

• Agricultural marketing
• Organic vegan agriculture
• Eco-label
• List of organic seals
• List of Fairtrade seals
• Textile seal

Web links

Europe

• Logo and labeling in the Agriculture and Rural Development portal : Organic Agriculture of the European Commission

Germany

• Bio-Siegel in the information portal oekolandbau.de of the Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food
• Website of the Bavarian organic seal , Bavarian State Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Forests

Switzerland

• Research Institute for Organic Agriculture : Organic label explained simply (PDF 1.5 MB)
• Federal Office for the Environment : Label information platforms : A clear view of the diversity of information ( Memento from October 14, 2018 in the Internet Archive )
• Food labels, 2015 ranking of organic labels in Switzerland (including EU labels) - Foundation Pusch, WWF Switzerland , Helvetas and Foundation for Consumer Protection SKS , on wwf.ch
• Background report on label assessment 2015 (PDF 1.11 MB), Pusch, WWF Switzerland, Helvetas, SKS, STS, ACSI, FRC, on wwf.ch
  Summary of background report on label assessment 2015 (PDF 1.11 MB)
• Evaluation of food labels on labelinfo.ch
• Assessment of the label system , on labelinfo.ch

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Bio-Siegel , on EU and German organic seals, on oekolandbau.de
2. ↑ Trademark protection for EU organic logo expired In: bio-markt.info, October 5, 2018, accessed on October 7, 2018.
3. ↑ That's it - EU organic logo no longer protected as a trademark Christoph Rieken, Katja Schmitt: News article from December 21, 2018 on www.noerr.com, accessed on November 23, 2019.
4. ↑ At a glance: Information on the organic seal. Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food - Bio-Siegel Information Center, accessed on September 25, 2017 . 
5. ↑ What are the rules for processing organic food? Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food - Bio-Siegel Information Center, accessed on September 25, 2017 . 
6. ↑ Achim Willand and Georg Buchholz: "Bio" and "ohne Gentechnik" - comparison and evaluation . In : recht - The magazine for European food law . ( recht-die-zeitschrift.de ).
7. ↑ Bio-Siegel in Europe ( Memento of the original from January 9, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. reformhaus.de, March 21, 2016. 
8. ↑ Sarah Herrmann (for PUSCH): Evaluation of the food labels 2015 , Zurich, 2015, p. 12, the following quote p. 27
9. ↑ Legal definition according to § 1 ÖkoKennzG; the term organic seal is alien to the regulations
10. ↑ Öko- Kennzeichengesetz (ÖkoKennzG), obligation to notify according to § 3 Öko- Kennzeichenverordnung (ÖkoKennzV)
11. ↑ up to one year imprisonment according to § 3 OkoKennzG
12. ↑ Welcome to the Bio-Siegel website! Federal Agency for Agriculture and Food - Bio-Siegel Information Center, August 31, 2017, accessed on September 9, 2017 . 
13. ↑ BLE : Bio-Siegel , accessed May 24, 2020
14. ↑ Sarah Hermann, Background Report , 2015, Zurich, p. 27
15. ↑ ^{a b c} oekolandbau.de . 2017. Retrieved March 9, 2017.
16. ↑ ^{a b c} Biokreis guidelines for processing. In: biokreis.de. Retrieved May 24, 2017 . 
17. ↑ ^{a b c} Comparison of Bioland guidelines / EU organic regulation (PDF; 346 kB) August 3, 2017. Archived from the original on March 26, 2017. Retrieved on March 9, 2017.
18. ↑ ^{a b c} Difference between organic and Demeter . October 2017. Retrieved July 1, 2018.
19. ↑ ^{a b c} Naturland Production Standards (PDF; 1.3 MB) June 2018. Accessed on April 11, 2019.
20. ↑ ^{a b c} Naturland Processing Standards (PDF; 1.3 MB) June 2018. Accessed on April 11, 2019.
21. ↑ ^{a b c} Bavarian organic seal / quality requirements. Retrieved June 23, 2017 . 
22. ↑ Keeping fattening pigs . June 25, 2015. Retrieved March 26, 2017.
23. ↑ Requirements and guidelines for animal-friendly dairy cattle stalls . June 25, 2015. Retrieved March 26, 2017.
24. ↑ Animal welfare during transport and slaughter . August 17, 2015. Retrieved March 26, 2017.
25. ↑ General - agricultural production (point 9.1.3 pigs, page 18) . April 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
26. ↑ Information sheet on piglet castration (Bioland) . January 2013. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
27. ↑ Guideline changes 2019 (Demeter) . December 3, 2018. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
28. ↑ Customer information - Naturland pigs . December 12, 2016. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
29. ↑ Background report 2015 Labels for food , WWF, SKS, STS, ACSI, FRC see Weblinks > Switzerland
30. ↑ Background report on labels for food (2010) , WWF, SKS, STS, ACSI, FRC, October 2010 ( background report 2015 see web links > Switzerland )
31. ↑ ^{a b} This is where IP-SUISSE is . In: ipsuisse.ch , accessed on March 31, 2020.
32. ↑ IP-Suisse does not give Aldi the Beetle . In: schweizerbauer.ch , April 22, 2015, accessed on February 27, 2020.
33. ↑ ^{a b} Food labels, 2015 ranking of organic labels in Switzerland (including EU labels) - Foundation Pusch, WWF Switzerland , Helvetas and Foundation for Consumer Protection SKS , on wwf.ch

Please note the information on legal issues!