Summary of responses and government response
Updated 27 August 2024
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/eggs-removing-the-16-week-derogation-period-in-egg-marketing-standards/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response
Executive summary
This document provides an overview of the substantive points raised by respondents to the consultation on removing the 16-week maximum derogation period in the egg marketing standards legislation in England and Scotland which ran from 9 January 2024 to 5 March 2024.
The purpose of the consultation was to gather views on the proposed reform of the Egg Marketing Standards Regulation (No 589/2008) to amend the regulation of the labelling of free-range eggs, enabling free-range eggs to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures.
The Egg Marketing Standard Regulations (No 589/2008) are a devolved matter; however, the consultation was run jointly with the Scottish government.
When considering this summary analysis of responses, it is important to keep in mind that public consultations are not necessarily representative of the wider population, and in this case, of all egg producers and consumers. Since anyone can submit their views, individuals, organisations, and businesses who are more able and willing to respond are more likely to participate. Because of this likelihood for self-selection, the approach of this analysis has not only been to count how many respondents held a certain view but also to include qualitative analysis of the additional comments provided to consider the range of issues raised by respondents, differences in views and the reasons for them holding their view.
Overview of the analysis of responses
We received 187 responses to the consultation, 38 of which were Scottish responses. The largest number of respondents from both England and Scotland were egg producers, a substantial number of responses were from members of the public, and there were a small number of responses from the wider egg supply chain, the retail sector, sector trade bodies and consumer interest groups.
The consultation proposal to remove the 16-week maximum derogation period for the labelling of free-range eggs was supported by the majority of respondents.
What will we do next?
The UK and Scottish governments would like to thank all those who took the time to engage with this consultation for their views and feedback. We have carefully considered all the responses and comments and have agreed the following next steps.
We will amend the existing legislation to remove the 16-week maximum derogation timeframe so that when in England and Scotland free-range laying hens’ access to open air runs is restricted due to housing measures, eggs can continue to be marketed as free-range for the duration of those restrictions.
If housing measures are introduced, for free-range hens, notices will be issued to inform the public and media of their introduction. We will also encourage the egg industry and retailers to communicate this to their customers.
We will pass on to the Welsh government the potential issues and impacts that have been raised in the responses to the consultation in respect of the 16-week maximum derogation period not being removed across all the United Kingdom (UK).
About the consultation
On 9 January 2024 the UK and Scottish governments issued a joint consultation on the proposal to remove the maximum 16-week derogation period, allowing free range eggs to be labelled as free-range (instead of barn reared) for the full duration of a mandatory housing measure in England and Scotland. The consultation closed at midnight on 5 March 2024.
Who responded to the consultation?
We received 187 responses to the consultation, 38 of which were Scottish responses. 179 responses were provided to the Citizen Space survey consultation questions and 8 email responses were received. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the Citizen Space responses to each of the consultation questions is summarised under each of the headings in this report.
We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond to the consultation. The breakdown of respondents is shown in Tables 1 and 2, below.
Geographical coverage
Table 1: The geographical coverage of the responses received. The respondents add up to more than 179 as some respondents selected more than one answer.
| Geographical area | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| England | 117 |
| Scotland | 38 |
| UK (please state where) | 45 |
| Other (please state where) | 11 |
Type of respondents
Table 2: Who the respondents represented.
| Type of respondent | Number of responses |
|---|---|
| Egg producer | 80 |
| Egg packer | 20 |
| Retailer | 1 |
| Food processor or manufacturer | 4 |
| Sector trade body or membership organisation | 8 |
| Individual or member of the public | 49 |
| Other | 16 |
None of the respondents selected ‘Egg wholesaler’ or ‘Egg importer or exporter’.
Responses to questions
Views on removing the maximum 16-week derogation period allowing free-range eggs to be labelled as free-range throughout the duration of a mandatory housing measure in England and Scotland.
Citizen Space responses to the closed question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove the 16-week derogation period? This would allow eggs that are from laying poultry that are subject to a housing measure to be labelled as ‘free range’ throughout the duration of an order.
| Response | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | 126 | 70% |
| Disagree | 51 | 29% |
| Don’t know | 0 | 0% |
| Other - please provide comments | 2 | 1% |
| Not answered | 0 | 0% |
The majority of respondents 126 (70%) out of the 179 agreed with the proposal for the removal of the maximum 16-week derogation period for the labelling of free-range eggs during housing measures. 51 (28%) respondents were not supportive of the proposal, whilst 2 (1%) respondents provided alternative comments. These were, that there should be additional labelling stating why the hens had been housed and how long they had been housed for.
Of the 38 responses from Scotland, most agreed with the proposal 32 (84%), whilst 5 (13%) did not support it, and 1 (3%) provided alternative comments, which was that an alternative label should be used, such as ‘normally free range’ ‘temporarily indoors’, or ‘free-range producer’.
Qualitative analysis of the comments provided
There were a number of common themes from respondents that supported the proposal. These were that it would keep England and Scotland aligned with the EU, support the continued import and export of eggs with the EU and Northern Ireland, that the egg producers should not have to absorb all the additional costs of housing measures and that it would reduce the cost and complexity of packing and labelling during housing measures. Some respondents said the proposal should be implemented across the whole of Great Britain. Of the respondents that were not supportive of the proposal most said it could result in consumers feeling misled or consumers having a lack of trust in egg labelling. Some respondents felt there was a potential for food fraud.
Citizen Space responses to the closed question: To date housing orders have only ever been in place for limited time periods. With this consideration do you think the proposed alteration to the Egg Marketing Standard Regulation could confuse consumers in any way?
| Response | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| To a large extent | 49 | 27% |
| To some extent | 11 | 6% |
| A little | 22 | 12% |
| Not at all | 96 | 54% |
| Not answered | 1 | 1% |
Most respondents to Citizen Space, 96 (54%) did not think that the proposal would confuse consumers at all, whilst 49 (27%) said the proposal could to a large extent confuse consumers.
Some respondents said the proposal could confuse the consumer a little 22 (12%), with a few believing this could to some extent 11 (6%). 1 respondent (0.56%) did not answer this question.
Citizen Space response to the closed question: If you think there is a risk of confusion, do you have any suggestions for how the risk of confusion could be mitigated?
| Response | Total | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 60 | 34% |
| No | 39 | 22% |
| Not applicable | 63 | 35% |
| Not answered | 17 | 9% |
Many of the respondents to Citizen Space, 63 (35%) said that this question was not applicable and 17 (9%) did not answer it. Of the 99 respondents who provided a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response (55% of the total respondents), just under a third 60 (34%) provided suggestions on how the risk of confusion could be mitigated.
Qualitative analysis of the comments provided
Respondents made a range of suggestions on how any risk of potential consumer confusion could be reduced. These suggestions focused on increased communications with consumers, either through increased signage on retail shelves, increased public awareness, and the addition of new labels or stickers on egg packaging.
Qualitative analysis of comment provided to the question: If the removal of the 16-week labelling derogation is not adopted within legislation in all of the Great Britain nations (England, Scotland, Wales) what would be the implications for you, if any, and for the egg industry more broadly?
139 (74%) of the respondents, including email responses, provided comments to this question. Predominantly the responses stated the potential negative impacts if the removal of the 16-week labelling derogation period was not adopted across all Great Britain nations. Of these, most respondents identified the financial impact there would be on producers and packers. It also highlighted that consumers would be affected through increased prices and potential confusion amongst the public. As eggs produced in different parts of Great Britain are often packed in the same facility, many respondents felt this would stem from increased complexity and additional costs of different labelling requirements at packing houses, leading to a disruption to the egg supply chain. Some respondents commented that this could possibly result in a loss of consumer confidence in free-range eggs. Many of the respondents highlighted the need for the 16-week maximum derogation to be removed across all the Great Britain nations.
Summary of email responses
A small number of email responses to the consultation were received via email (8). Where possible, these have been aligned with the Citizen Space responses. These responses were predominantly from retailers whose only comment was to support the full response from the British Retail Consortium (BRC). The BRC stated in their response that they “strongly agree with the proposal”, to remove the 16-week maximum derogation period. Their members’ experience during previous outbreaks was that consumers understood that the priority should be the welfare of the birds, and the support for egg producers. Their members had also received very few queries and no complaints by customers during previous outbreaks regarding the labelling of free-range eggs.
Next steps
Defra and the Scottish government thank all respondents to this consultation for their views and feedback. We have carefully considered all the responses and views provided and have agreed to deliver the following next steps.
Having considered the responses to this consultation, both the UK and Scottish governments will remove the 16-week maximum derogation period for the marketing of free-range eggs produced in England and Scotland during a mandatory housing measure. This will allow them to be labelled and marketed as free-range for the duration of the restrictions.
We recognise that a number of respondents, including some consumer stakeholder groups have concerns that the removal of the maximum 16-week derogation period may lead to some consumer confusion and reduced confidence in the egg industry.
If housing measures are introduced, for free-range hens, notices will be issued to inform the public and media of their introduction. We will also encourage the egg industry and retailers to communicate this to their customers.
A significant number of respondents to this consultation were from outside England and Scotland. Predominantly these responses said that removal of the 16-week maximum derogation period in England and Scotland, but not in Wales (the derogation period has already been removed in Northern Ireland) could have a significant negative impact on their businesses.
We will pass on to the Welsh government the potential issues and impacts that have been raised in the responses to the consultation in respect of the 16-week maximum derogation period not being removed across all the UK.
The UK government and the Scottish government will deliver the legislative reforms outlined in this report over the coming months seeking to ensure the changes are in place for the winter period 2024 to 2025.