The organic farming regulation faces what could be its decisive negotiating round on 20 October, when the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission sit down for a first political trilogue. Negotiators hope to reach a provisional agreement that day, and officials concede the meeting may also be the last. The stakes are practical, because the rules governing organic imports need fixing before the end of the year.
The Commission tabled the amendment on 16 December 2025. It responds to the Herbaria judgment of October 2024, in which the Court of Justice pointed to an uneven situation on the organic market. Some imported products could carry the EU organic logo, while comparable products made inside the Union could not. The amended organic farming regulation is meant to remove that imbalance and give importers and producers a clear legal basis.
A second deadline adds pressure. Equivalence agreements with 11 third countries expire at the end of 2026 unless the co-legislators extend them. The Commission proposes a ten-year extension while it negotiates replacement trade agreements, and those agreements could end the equivalence arrangements sooner if talks succeed. Without a deal in time, exporters in those countries would face uncertainty at the start of 2027.
Four political questions remain open. The first is the length of the extension, since Parliament backs five years while the Council’s mandate says ten. A shorter period would force a faster review of how third-country standards compare with EU ones. A longer one would give trading partners predictability, but it would also postpone any tightening of the organic farming regulation for imports.
The second question in the organic farming regulation talks concerns review and reporting duties. Parliament wants regular checks on how equivalence works in practice, and the Council prefers lighter obligations. The third is mandatory origin labelling, including how large the country of origin must appear on the pack. Consumer groups tend to favour prominent labels, while some processors warn about redesign costs.
The fourth question is whether national or private logos should be banned when a product does not meet the conditions for the EU logo. Supporters say the ban protects consumer trust in a single label. Opponents argue that established national schemes, built over decades, serve buyers who already know them. Negotiators will need compromise language on the organic farming regulation to close this point.
Parliament has also added a wine-related request. It wants to lift the ban on tartaric stabilisation by electrodialysis in organic wine production. The Commission could answer with a declaration that places the technique on the agenda of EGTOP, the expert group that advises it on organic production. That route would let the institutions park the issue without reopening the text.
For farmers, the outcome matters beyond Brussels. Organic producers compete with imports that enter under equivalence, so any change to the organic farming regulation shapes prices and market access. For consumers, origin labelling and logo rules decide how easily they can tell where a product comes from and which standard it meets.
The calendar leaves little room for delay. If the 20 October round fails, further trilogues would have to squeeze into November and December, and the Union would still need publication in the Official Journal before year-end. Both sides have an interest in finishing, but each wants a different balance on duration and oversight.
Watch the outcome of the 20 October meeting closely. A deal would settle the legal footing for organic imports and end a dispute that began with a court ruling two years ago. Failure would leave the organic farming regulation in doubt just as the equivalence agreements run out.
