The suspensions issued today against organic-product certification bodies shake once again a market that is already under pressure. And while the Ministry speaks of stricter oversight and greater transparency, producers are left with a simple yet crucial question: are the rules applied equally to everyone? Because behind the fines and decisions, what truly concerns rural communities is what all this means for the payments they are expecting.
The three suspensions, effective 25 November 2025, form part of a broader campaign to tighten the control system an effort the Ministry presents as necessary to restore consumer trust and protect producers who follow the rules. Since August, total fines imposed on certification bodies have reached €179,692.05, a figure that reflects both the scale of the irregularities and the extent of the government’s intervention.
At the same time, the special Task Force led by General Secretary Spyros Protopsaltis has undertaken a review of the oversight framework. The findings expected to be made public could offer the first comprehensive glimpse of the new control model, one that seems to point toward a more centralised and arguably more transparent supervisory architecture.
However, while the Ministry attempts to project a message of strictness, another issue emerges more complex, and perhaps more critical: the management of OPEKEPE payments for 2025. According to cross-checked information, the Agency has already decided to exclude from the advance payment two certification bodies that have been under suspension since August, raising concerns about whether it actually holds a clear legal mandate to take such action.
This decision inevitably raises the question: Will the same measure be applied to the bodies suspended today, or will we witness double standards?
In a market already battered by uncertainty, delays, and mixed policy signals, consistency in the application of rules is not merely an obligation—it is a condition for survival. The notion that the Agency may exclude beneficiaries based on administrative acts sits in a grey legal zone, one that has not yet been clarified.
The political leadership of the Ministry insists on “zero tolerance.” The real issue, however, is not only whether sanctions are imposed, but whether they are imposed uniformly. And above all, whether producers know in advance what each administrative decision means for their payments rather than discovering it after the fact.
Ultimately, the credibility of the organic label will be judged not only by the fines imposed but by the consistency of the institutions tasked with safeguarding it. Until then, the market will continue to wrestle with the same fundamental questions: who enforces the rules, when, and according to which criteria?
1. Suspension Decision – BIOHELLAS S.A.
2. Suspension Decision – TERRA CERT S.A.
3. Suspension Decision – Q-CHECK I.K.E.