Shortcomings in the EU olive oil control systems put the product’s quality, safety, and traceability at risk, according to a new audit report published on Wednesday by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
Olive oil is considered a flagship product for the EU, which is the world’s leading producer (61 % of the global market), exporter (65 %), and consumer (45 %). Its reputation for quality and authenticity is vital economically, and consumers rely on the assurance that extra virgin and other categories of olive oil meet the EU’s high marketing standards and food safety requirements.
ECA writes in the report that many EU citizens incorporate olive oil into their daily diet. This is especially important when it comes to extra virgin olive oil, which is marketed at a higher price than other oils, and must therefore meet high standards to justify its price to consumers.
As a result, olive oil is a highly regulated product by the EU with the Member States being responsible for setting up own control systems and carrying out checks.
ECA examined whether the control systems in place across the EU guarantee that the olive oil sold within its borders is genuine (does not contain other oils and its quality and purity correspond to the category on the label), safe (does not contain contaminants), and traceable (origin can be traced and verified).
“Consumers must be able to trust the quality and authenticity of the olive oil they buy”, said Joëlle Elvinger, the Luxembourgian ECA Member in charge of the audit, at a press briefing (14 January). “While the EU has robust rules, they are not always fully applied. Improving checks, traceability, and legal clarity is essential to protect not only consumers but also the reputation of European olive oil”.
That reputation may also be damaged by recurrent media reports about fraud related to EU’s subsidies to olive oil but this issue was outside the scope of the audit. Olive oil fraud might involve mislabeling adulteration (mixing with cheaper or unfit oils).
The latest audit which addressed this issue dates to 2000 (SR 11/2000) when ECA examined the support system to olive oil. The system at that time was found to be inadequate and prone to irregularities and fraud.
Since then, the forms of specific support for the olive oil sector have changed and the total amounts are also lower (around € 150 million in 2022), the audit team told The Brussels Times. ECA has no information about the error rate in the olive oil sector or whether it is higher than the average for agriculture.
Table: Olive production by country, five-year averages 2019 – 2024 (amounts in 1 000 tonnes)
Credit: ECA
The auditors assessed the design of the control framework and its implementation since 2018 in four member states: Greece, Spain, Italy and Belgium. The first three Member States were selected because they together are responsible for around 91 % of the EU’s olive oil production (of which around 38 % is exported).
Among the non-producing countries, Belgium is the biggest exporter of EU olive oil (mainly to the US) and importer of extra-EU olive oil. Tunisia is the main exporter to the EU (75 % of the volume imported), followed by Türkiye (7.8 %), Argentina (3.9 %) and Morocco (3.5 %).
Insufficient controls
EU rules set minimum requirements for labelling, category verification, and pesticide testing. The auditors found that some conformity checks are incomplete, and parts of the market are sometimes excluded from risk-based inspections. This leaves gaps in the system that can affect quality and, ultimately, consumer confidence.
Checks for pesticide residues in olive oil from EU countries are well established and rarely reveal cases of non-compliance. However, checks for other contaminants are inconsistent, and risk-based justification is not always documented.
Although the EU imports the equivalent of around 9 % of its annual olive oil production, the auditors found that checks for pesticides and other contaminants in olive oil imported from non-EU countries were either non-existent or sporadic in the EU countries they visited.
The auditors were reluctant to highlight any country for best control practice. Spain and Italy track the origin of olives and olive oil at all stages in the supply chain. However, the auditors found that tracking olive oil across borders is difficult. This is especially true of olive oil originating from more than one EU country, or from a mix of EU and non-EU origins.
For a conformity check to be considered complete, 15 parameters must be analysed. The auditors found that only the Spanish authorities had analysed all parameters, even though all the Member States that were visited had reported to the Commission that they had carried out complete checks.
Belgian authorities do not carry out checks on online sales, or at the importers’ premises on olive oil imported from non-EU countries. In Greece, the authorities only carry out conformity checks on olive oil produced in the country and destined for the Greek market.
Recommendations accepted
The Commission welcomed the report and wrote in its reply that the audit provided “an insightful analysis” of the current implementation of EU legislation by Member States carrying out these controls, highlighting areas for improvement in the future. This positive assessment was also reflected in its acceptance of all audit recommendations:
- Strengthen the Commission’s oversight of member states’ control systems for olive oil
- Clarify the rules for blending different virgin olive oils
- Improve guidance on checks for contaminants in olive oil
- Clarify and provide guidance on traceability check requirements
- Improve the traceability of olive oil
Despite the uneven implementation of controls, ECA did not consider country-specific recommendations. “The Member States that we checked during the audit are aware of their shortcomings and of the need to improve their checks,” ECA Member Elvinger explained.
“We addressed the first recommendation to the Commission because it can induce all Member States, including those that were not checked during the audit, to provide information about their control systems and take action if they are found insufficient.”
