19 Marketing Requirements

All Oiva evaluation guidelines for approved food establishments.

19.1 Quality and Weight Grading of Eggs

Guide/version: 2208/04.02.00.01/2021/2, valid from 3.3.2020

This evaluation is at present not presented in the Oiva report, but only in the control report

To be taken into consideration:

  • This Guideline is applied to egg-packing centres that carry out quality and weight grading of eggs.
  • It is recommended that point 19.2 "Stamping and Labelling of Eggs" and point 19.3 "Stock Records at Egg-packing Centres" are controlled at the same time.
  • The grades issued for controls related to marketing do not affect the Oiva grade issued for controls related to food legislation.

Matters to be controlled:

  • The correctness of the quality grading carried out by the packing centre is controlled by controlling (candling) from each weight grade randomly selected egg batches that have already been quality graded. The recommended numbers of eggs to be selected for the control of the correctness of quality grading are presented in Evira's Guide 16047. 
  • The correctness of the weight grading carried out by the packing centre is controlled by selecting from the stock of the packing centre an egg batch of 10 eggs randomly from each weight grade. The eggs of the selected batch are checked for their weight per egg. 
  • Quality and weighing records from quality and weight grading as part of own-check.
  • Deviations in temperatures, corrective actions and records of corrective actions.
  • The adequacy and suitability of own-check activities and, were appropriate, the plan are controlled by applying the Annex to Guideline 1.6: "Adequacy and Suitability of Own-check Activities".

Excellent: Operations are in line with the requirements.Operations comply with requirements.

The quality and weight grading of the egg batches controlled by the control authority meet regulatory requirements. Quality defects and weight grading are within the regulatory tolerances in the egg batches.

Quality deviations of eggs do not exceed 5% in the controlled batch.

The total deviation in the weights per egg does not exceed 10% in the controlled batch, and the proportion of underweight eggs does not exceed 5%. Where the controlled batch contains fewer than 180 eggs, the percentages for quality and weight deviations shall be doubled.

The egg-packing centre monitors quality and weight grading on a regular basis.

The monitoring results regarding quality and weight grading meet regulatory requirements at the packing centre.

The records related to quality and weight grading are available for control at the packing centre.

The grading of eggs takes place within ten days of laying.

Good: There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.

The grade can be Good e.g. in cases where:

  • There are some minor shortcomings in how the monitoring of the quality grading of eggs is implemented at the egg-packing centre. For example, quality grading has not been carried out on some isolated occasions and/or some individual monitoring results have not been recorded.
  • There have been some minor shortcomings regarding the monitoring frequency of the weight grading of eggs carried out at the packing centre.
  • For example, weight grading has not been monitored on some isolated occasions and/or some individual monitoring results have not been recorded.

To be corrected: There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.

The grade can be To be corrected e.g. in cases where:

  • Quality defects in quality grading have systematically exceeded the deviations allowed by legislation.
  • The proportion of eggs of the next lower weight grade systematically exceeds the allowed 5% deviation in the individual weighting results in weight grading.
  • The quality and weight grading of eggs has not been monitored on a regular basis according to the own-check.
  • There has been a malfunction in the quality and/or weight grading equipment which has not been detected.
  • The grading of eggs has repeatedly taken place later than within 10 days of laying.

Poor: There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.

The grade can be Poor e.g. in cases where:

  • The control results of quality grading have not met regulatory requirements and the operator has failed to correct the adjustments of the quality grading equipment.
  • Quality grading has not been monitored at all.
  • The control results of weight grading have not met regulatory requirements and the operator has failed to calibrate the weighing equipment.
  • Weight grading has not been monitored at all.
  • The controlling inspector has during several control visits made comments about shortcomings in the operation of the quality grading and/or weight grading equipment, but the operator has failed to take necessary actions.

 Legislation and guidelines (with any amendments) pertaining to the subject:

  • Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) 992/72, (EEC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, Articles 1, 74 and 78, Annex I Part XIX, Annex II Part VII, and Annex VII, Part VI
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs
  • Act on the organisation of the markets in agricultural products 999/2012 (incl. amendment 1194/2013), Section 58 c
  • Evira's Guide 16034 Production and marketing of eggs and other bird's eggs
  • Evira's Guide 16047 Marketing requirements subject to control at egg-packing centres.


Updates in version 2:

  • The control of own-check activities has been clarified

19.2 Stamping and Labelling of Eggs

Guide/version: 2209/04.02.00.01/2021/3, tagen i bruk 1.7.2021

This evaluation is at present not presented in the Oiva report, but only in the control report

To be taken into consideration:

  • This Guideline is applied to egg-packing centres that stamp and/or pack eggs for end-users and mass caterers.
  • It is recommended that points 13.1 "General Labelling" (name of foodstuff and labelling in Finnish and Swedish), 19.1 "Quality and Weight Grading of Eggs", and 19.3 "Stock Records at Egg-packing Centres" are controlled at the same time.
  • The general labelling of egg packages is evaluated in point 13.1.
  • The grades issued for controls related to marketing do not affect the Oiva grade for controls related to food legislation.

Matters to be controlled:

  • Stamping of eggs
    • The correctness of the marking/stamping of eggs carried out at the egg-packing centre is controlled by selecting from the stock of the packing centre an egg batch of 10 eggs randomly from each weight grade that has already been quality and weight graded. The correctness of stamping can be controlled using the same eggs used to control the correctness of weight grading.
    • The production code to be stamped on eggs = the code of the poultry farm consists of the number indicating the farming method, the country code and the number identifying the poultry farm. The producer code shall be easily visible, clearly legible and be at least 2 mm high. The stamping ink used for eggs shall be suitable for food use.
    • In the control of egg batches, a tolerance of 20% of eggs with marks that are illegible is allowed. Stamps are considered illegible, if they are e.g. missing in part or in whole, or are unclear or incorrect.
  • The compliance of the labelling of eggs with requirements is evaluated by means of random sampling, taking the nature and scope of operation into consideration.
    • The packaging of eggs marketed to consumers in quality and weight graded retail packages shall bear at least the following labelling: name of food (general labelling requirement) (eggs), name, address and code of egg-packing centre, quality grading (class A or the letter A), weight grading, net quantity, minimum durability, or best-before date, storage instructions, farming method, explanation of the producer code stamped on the egg (= poultry farm code) (as well as a voluntary indication "extra" or "extra fresh").
    • The adequacy and suitability of own-check activities and, were appropriate, the plan are controlled by applying the Annex to Guideline 1.6: "Adequacy and Suitability of Own-check Activities".

Excellent: Operations are in line with the requirements.Operations comply with requirements.

The stamping of the egg batches controlled by the control authority meet regulatory requirements.

Marking errors found in the egg batches are within the tolerances allowed by legislation. A tolerance of 20% of eggs with erroneous markings is allowed in the controlled batch.

The labelling of eggs meets regulatory requirements.

The information is marked in such a way as to be easily visible.

Good: There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.

The grade can be Good e.g. in cases where:

  • There are some minor shortcomings in how the monitoring of the correctness of stamping of eggs is implemented at the egg-packing centre. For example, the correctness of stamping has not been monitored on some isolated occasions and/or some individual monitoring results have not been recorded.
  • As a rule, the labelling of eggs meets regulatory requirements.
  • There are some minor shortcomings in labelling; for example, the address of the egg-packing centre is not complete.

To be corrected: There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.

The grade can be To be corrected e.g. in cases where:

  • The control carried out by the controlling inspector shows that the proportion of marking errors in the controlled eggs exceeds the 20% deviation allowed by law.
  • The correctness of the stamping of eggs has not been monitored on a regular basis according to the own-check.
  • There has been a malfunction in the stamping equipment which has not been detected.
  • There are essential defects or shortcomings in the labelling of eggs, such as a misleading name, packing centre information is missing or incomplete, farming method is not indicated, no explanation is provided of the poultry farm code stamped on the egg, best-before date is missing or has been calculated incorrectly from the laying date or the first day of the period of laying.

Poor: There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.

The grade can be Poor e.g. in cases where:

  • The control results of the stamping of eggs do not meet regulatory requirements. The 20% tolerance allowed by legislation is repeatedly exceeded and the operator has failed to take actions to rectify the problem.
  • The correctness of the stamps has not been monitored at all.
  • There are constantly malfunctions in the egg stamping equipment which have not been rectified.
  • Labelling is completely missing from eggs or there are defects which require immediate rectification or recall, such as incorrect indication of farming method, e.g. eggs from caged hens are stamped as organically produced eggs.

Legislation and guidelines (with any amendments) pertaining to the subject:

  • Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) 992/72, (EEC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, Articles 1, 74 and 78, Annex I Part XIX, Annex II Part VII, and Annex VII, Part VI
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs
  • Act on the organisation of the markets in agricultural products 999/2012 (incl. amendment 1194/2013), Section 58 c
  • Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on food hygiene 318/2021
  • Evira's Guide 16034 Production and marketing of eggs and other bird's eggs
  • Evira's Guide 16047 Marketing requirements subject to control at egg-packing centres.


Updates in version 2:

  • The control of own-check activities has been clarified
    Updates in version 3:
  • Guideline 2209/04.02.00.01/2021 is replaced by guideline 10329
  • The number of the Food Act has been updated.

19.3 Stock Records at Egg-packing Centres

Guide/version: 2210/04.02.00.01/2021/1, tagen i bruk 11.1.2016

This evaluation is at present not presented in the Oiva report, but only in the control report

To be taken into consideration:

  • This point is applied to all egg-packing centres.
  • It is recommended that points 19.1 "Quality and Weight Grading of Eggs" and 19.2 "Stamping and Labelling of Eggs" are controlled at the same time.
  • Records related to salmonella control are controlled in point 15.2. Controlling point 15.2 together with this point 19.3 would be a natural thing to do.
  • The grades issued for controls related to marketing do not affect the Oiva grade for controls related to food legislation.

Matters to be controlled:

  • Control of the records of the egg-packing centre by farming method and on a daily basis.
    • the quantity of ungraded eggs received from each producer, the name, address and producer code of the producer, and the laying date or period
    • quantity of eggs by quality and weight class after grading
    • quantities of graded eggs delivered from other packing centres, and the code of these packing centres and the minimum durability date for the eggs.
    • quantities of ungraded eggs delivered to other packing centres, broken down by producer, including the code of the other packing centres as well as the laying date or period.
    • quantity and/or weight of delivered eggs broken down by quality and weight class, and for class B eggs by packing date, and for class A eggs by minimum durability date, and purchaser (name and address of purchaser to be indicated).
  • Controlling that records are kept for at least 12 months from the date of their creation.
  • The adequacy and suitability of own-check activities and, where appropriate, the plan are controlled by applying the Annex to Guideline 1.6: "Adequacy and Suitability of Own-check Activities".

Excellent: Operations are in line with the requirements.Operations comply with requirements.

The egg-packing centre has updated records regarding the aforementioned matters.

Records are available for control over a period of at least 12 months.

Records are made available to the controlling authority on request. 

Good: There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.

The grade can be Good e.g. in cases where:

  • There have been some minor shortcomings or inaccuracies in records, e.g. in daily records, name and address information on purchasers, but the quantities of eggs received, graded and delivered for marketing are consistent by farming method.
  • Some individual records cannot be found after e.g. 10 months. 

To be corrected: There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.

The grade can be To be corrected e.g. in cases where:

  • There are no records of the quantities of eggs received from and/or delivered to other packing centres.
  • No laying date or period is indicated for eggs received at the packing centre.
  • The quantity of eggs after quality and weight grading is not consistent with the quantity of eggs received at the packing centre.
  • Records are only available over a period of e.g. six months. 

Poor: There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.

The grade can be Poor e.g. in cases where:

  • There are several shortcomings in the records making it impossible to verify that all required records have been kept and are up-to-date.
  • Records have not been made available for control despite the controlling inspector's request.
  • No records have been kept.

 Legislation and guidelines (with any amendments) pertaining to the subject:

  • Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) 992/72, (EEC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, Articles 1, 74 and 78, Annex I Part XIX, Annex II Part VII, and Annex VII, Part VI
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs
  • Act on the organisation of the markets in agricultural products 999/2012 (incl. amendment 1194/2013), Section 58 c
  • Evira's Guide 16034 Production and marketing of eggs and other bird's eggs
  • Evira's Guide 16047 Marketing requirements subject to control at egg-packing centres.


Updates in version 1:

  • Guideline 2210/04.02.00.01/2021/2 is replaced by guideline 10330.

19.4 Milk and milk products

Guide/version: 2211/04.02.00.01/2021/3, tagen i bruk 1.7.2021

This evaluation is at present not presented in the Oiva report, but only in the control report.

To be taken into consideration:

This point pertaining to milk and milk products is to be controlled when the operator

  • manufactures, has manufactured for it and/or packages
  • imports and/or brokers (from the internal market and/or third countries)

milk and milk products.

The designations used in the marketing of milk and milk products, such as cream, cheese and yogurt, and their natural composition are protected by the Regulation (1308/2013) of the European Parliament and of the Council which defines the meaning of milk and milk products. The designations milk and milk products may be used provided they meet the requirements laid down in legislation (Regulation 1308/2013, Sections 74, 78, Annex VII, Parts III and IV).

In derogation of this, the protected designations of milk and milk products may also be used to the designation of products the exact nature of which is clear from traditional usage and/or when the designations are clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product (Commission Decision 2010/791/EU, Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2007). In Finland derogations related to the use of the Finnish word for butter include: kaakaovoi (cocoa butter), maapähkinävoi (peanut butter), voleipäkeksi (cracker), voitatti (Suillus luteus) and voileipäkakku (savoury sandwich cake). Derogations have been granted also to other countries regarding the designations cream, cheese and milk. The Finnish word munavoi (chopped egg mixed in butter) has also been granted a derogation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2007).

Butter is controlled in point 19.6 Spreadable Fats.

It is recommended that points 13.1 Mandatory food information and 13.2 Nutrition Labelling, and where applicable, point 12.3 Foodstuffs with Protected Status are controlled at the same time, because the designations of milk products are also protected by EU's name protection schemes (e.g. feta cheese). The adequacy and suitability of own-check activities and, where appropriate, the plan are controlled by applying the Annex to Guideline 1.6: "Adequacy and Suitability of Own-check Activities".

Matters to be controlled:

The implementation of own-check activities is evaluated by random checks on e.g. 1-3 packages of different products and/or batches, taking the scope and nature of operations into consideration. The purpose of the control is to evaluate, if the designations and product descriptions of milk and milk products, and foods used like milk products comply with the provisions laid down for designations of milk and milk products.

Compliance with requirements can be verified by means of, for example:

  • inspections of labelling, recipes and documents
  • where necessary, analysis certificates and/or own-check activity tests.

Excellent: Operations are in line with the requirements.Operations comply with requirements.

Milk and milk products are manufactured and designated in compliance with the definition of the designation of the relevant milk or milk product. The designation of the foodstuff laid down in provisions is clearly visible on the labelling.

Good: There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.

The manufacture and designation of milk and milk products takes place in compliance with the definition of the designation of the relevant milk or milk product. For example

  • the designation of the product is not clearly visible on the labelling
  • minor shortcomings are found in the minimum/maximum fat content defined for the sales designations of whole milk / semi-skimmed milk / skimmed milk.

To be corrected: There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.

The manufacture and designation of milk and milk products does not take place in compliance with the definition of the designation of the relevant milk or milk product. For example

  • shortcomings are found regarding the minimum/maximum fat content defined for the sales designations of whole milk / semi-skimmed milk / skimmed milk.
  • the origin (animal) of milk is not indicated for milk other than cow's milk
  • the designation like milk / like cheese is used for a product that does not contain any milk, or one ingredient of milk has been substituted with some other substance
  • the designation milk or milk product is used for a product manufactured using some other substance than milk, or one ingredient of milk has been substituted with some other substance
  • the designation semi-skimmed milk is used for a product with a reduced protein content.

Poor: There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.

There are repeatedly major shortcomings in the manufacture or designation of milk or milk products compared with the definition of the designation of the relevant milk product. For example

  • the monitoring of the minimum/maximum fat content defined for the sales designations of whole milk / semi-skimmed milk / skimmed milk has been repeatedly neglected
  • the designations of milk or milk products are repeatedly/intentionally misused.

Legislation and guidelines (with any amendments) pertaining to the subject:

  • Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) 992/72, (EEC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, Articles 1, 74 and 78, Annex I Part XVI, and Annex VII, Parts III and IV
  • Commission Decision 2010/791/EU listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III (1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2007 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2991/94 laying down standards for spreadable fats and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 on the protection of designations used in the marketing of milk and milk products
  • Act on the organisation of the markets in agricultural products 999/2012 (incl. amendment 1194/2013), Section 58 c
  • Finnish Food Act 297/2021, Section 6.


Updates in version 3:

  • The control of own-check activities has been clarified.
  • Guideline No 10331/3 is replaced by Guideline No 2211/04.02.00.01/2021/3
  • The Food Act Number and Section has been updated
  • Reference to the Commission decision has been corrected.

19.6 Spreadable fats

Guide/version: 2212/04.02.00.01/2021/3, tagen i bruk 1.7.2021

This evaluation is at present not presented in the Oiva report, but only in the control report.

To be taken into consideration:

This point pertaining to spreadable fats is to be controlled when the operator

  • manufactures, has manufactured for it and/or packages
  • imports and/or brokers (from the internal market and/or third countries)

spreadable fats.

The sales designations used in the marketing of spreadable fats intended for human consumption, such as butter, margarine and fat blend, and their composition are protected by the Regulation (1308/2013) of the European Parliament and of the Council. The Regulation defines the meaning of the different spreadable fats. The sales designations provided for spreadable fats may only be used in the marketing of products that comply with the definition and product category of the relevant product (Regulation 1308/2013, Articles 74-75, 78, Annex VII, Part VII and Appendix II).

In derogation of this, the protected designation of butter may also be used to the designation of products the exact nature of which is clear from traditional usage and/or when the designations are clearly used to describe a characteristic quality of the product (Commission Decision 2010/791/EU, Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2007). In Finland derogations related to the use of the Finnish word for butter include: kaakaovoi (cocoa butter), maapähkinävoi (peanut butter), voleipäkeksi (cracker), voitatti (Suillus luteus) and voileipäkakku (savoury sandwich cake). The Finnish word munavoi (chopped egg mixed in butter) has also been granted a derogation (Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2007).

It is recommended that points 13.1 Mandatory food information and 13.2 Nutrition labelling as well as 19.4 Milk and milk products are controlled at the same time. The adequacy and suitability of own-check activities and, where appropriate, the plan are controlled by applying the Annex to Guideline 1.6: "Adequacy and Suitability of Own-check Activities".

Matters to be controlled:

The implementation of own-check activities is evaluated by random checks on e.g. 1-3 packages of different products and/or batches, taking the scope and nature of operations into consideration. The purpose of the control is to evaluate, if the designations and product categories used in the marketing of spreadable fats comply with the provisions laid down for designations of spreadable fats.

Compliance with requirements can be verified by means of, for example:

  • inspections of labelling, recipes and documents
  • where necessary, analysis certificates and/or own-check activity tests.

Excellent: Operations are in line with the requirements.Operations comply with requirements.

Spreadable fat is manufactured and designated in compliance with the definition of the sales designation of the relevant product and the description of the product category is consistent with the definition.

Good: There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.

The manufacture and designation of spreadable fat takes place in compliance with the definition of the sales designation of the relevant product. There are some minor shortcomings in labelling, such as

  • A product with a milk-fat content of 38 percent is designated as half fat butter.

To be corrected: There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.

The manufacture and designation of spreadable fat does not take place in compliance with the definition of the sales designation of the relevant product. For example

  • A product with a fat content of 60 percent is designated as margarine.
  • The expression traditional is falsely used for a three-quarter or half fat butter product.

Poor: There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.

There are major shortcomings in the manufacture or designation of spreadable fat compared with the definition of the relevant sales designation. For example

  • A product containing no milkfat or in which part of the milkfat is substituted with other fats is designated as butter
  • Three-quarter or half fat butter is falsely designated as traditional butter.

Legislation and guidelines (with any amendments) pertaining to the subject:

  • Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) 992/72, (EEC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, Articles 74, 75 and 78, Annex VII, Part VII and Appendix II
  • Commission Decision 2010/791/EU listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III (1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007
  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2007 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2991/94 laying down standards for spreadable fats and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 on the protection of designations used in the marketing of milk and milk products
  • Act on the organisation of the markets in agricultural products 999/2012 (incl. amendment 1194/2013), Section 58 c
  • Finnish Food Act 297/2021, Section 6.


Updates in version 3:

  • The control of own-check activities has been clarified.
  • Guideline No 10332/3 is replaced by Guideline No 2212/04.02.00.01/2021/3
  • The Food Act Number and Section has been updated
  • Reference to the Commission decision has been corrected.

19.7 Monitoring Water Content of Poultry

Guide/version: 2213/04.02.00.01/2021/4, tagen i bruk 1.7.2021

This evaluation is at present not presented in the Oiva report, but only in the control report.

To be taken into consideration:

  • The purpose of this point is to evaluate the monitoring of the water content of chicken and turkey carcasses.

Matters to be controlled:

  • Weighing of birds before and after chilling
  • Use of an automatic weighing line, if appropriate
  • Weighing records related to water content monitoring as part of own-check
  • Deviations, corrective actions and records of corrective actions
  • The adequacy and suitability of own-check activities and, where appropriate, the plan are controlled by applying the Annex to Guideline 1.6: "Adequacy and Suitability of Own-check Activities”.

Excellent: Operations are in line with the requirements.Operations comply with requirements.

The water content is monitored on a regular basis and at a frequency that meets regulatory requirements.

Water content weighing results comply with regulatory requirements.

Weighing records are available for control and kept for one year.

All poultry batches are marked with an identification that makes it possible to determine the slaughtering date.

Good: There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.There are small issues with the operations which do not impair food safety or mislead consumers.

The grade can be Good e.g. in cases where:

  • There are some minor shortcomings in the implementation of weighing.
  • There have been some minor shortcomings in the monitoring frequency of water content.
  • The control results of water content do not meet regulatory requirements. The operator has used such batches in meat preparations or meat products as specified in regulatory requirements and has taken actions to rectify the process.

To be corrected: There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.There are issues with the operations which impair food safety or mislead consumers. These issues must be rectified within a set period of time.

The grade can be To be corrected e.g. in cases where:

  • The control results of water content do not meet regulatory requirements. However, the operator has failed to report the matter to the official veterinarian who has therefore not taken any control actions.
  • Water content has not been monitored at a frequency that meets regulatory requirements.
  • There has been a malfunction in the automatic weighing equipment which has not been detected.

Poor: There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.There are issues with the operations which jeopardise food safety or considerably mislead consumers, or the operator has failed to comply with orders that have been issued. These issues must be rectified with immediate effect.

The grade can be Poor e.g. in cases where:

  • The control results of water content do not meet regulatory requirements. However, the operator has failed to report the matter to the official veterinarian. The operator has also failed to take actions to rectify the process or has marketed the batch concerned as fresh or frozen meat in violation to legislation.
  • Water content has not been monitored at all.
  • There is a malfunction in the automatic weighing equipment which has not been rectified, or the measuring results of the automatic equipment have not been recorded.

Legislation and guidelines (with any amendments) pertaining to the subject:

  • Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat
  • Act on market arrangements of agricultural products 999/2012
  • Finnish Food Authority Guide 6059/04.02.00.01/2020/3 Management of water content of poultry meat at poultry slaughterhouses and cutting plants operating in conjunction with poultry slaughterhouses (in Finnish).


Updates in version 4

  • Guideline no. 2213/04.02.00.01/2021 replaces guideline no. 10333.