The European Vegetarian Union welcomes the proposal for the Public Procurement Act, which recognises food as a key procurement sector and introduces positive changes such as the Best Price-Quality Ratio. However, EVU warns that some of these improvements are still voluntary and lack binding requirements.
The European Commission’s proposal revising the EU’s public procurement framework, published two weeks ago, recognises food as a sector in its own right, where quality and sustainability are considered legitimate concerns alongside cost.
Article 53 sets out a dedicated provision for food procurement covering nutritional value and health, organic production, fairness and transparency in food supply chains, freshness and seasonality, and animal welfare. Recognising these considerations in the legislation matters, because it tells public authorities that they are entitled to weigh them.
Public procurement spending on food in the EU is estimated at around €50 billion each year. This spending influences what children eat at school, what patients are served in hospitals, and which producers can supply public institutions. If managed effectively and strategically, it could be one of the EU’s most powerful tools for creating healthier, more sustainable food systems and improving public health by shaping dietary patterns.
Genuine improvements in the text
Several changes in the proposal would strengthen strategic procurement if they survive negotiation.
The most significant change is the shift to the Best Price-Quality Ratio as the default award criterion. Lowest-price tendering has long been detrimental to sustainable sourcing, as it rewards the cheapest offer regardless of its nutritional, environmental, or health impact. Making quality the starting point reverses that logic.
The proposal also obliges authorities to consider splitting contracts into lots, which could make public tenders more accessible to smaller suppliers and farmers who are currently excluded due to the size of the contracts. Alongside this, the text strengthens provisions on procurement capacity and engagement with the market.
Where the proposal runs out of ambition
The problem remains that the EU’s sustainability architecture remains largely voluntary. While public buyers may take environmental and social considerations into account, they are not required to do so. Even the ‘Best Price-Quality Ratio’ default is weakened by the ‘comply or explain’ clause and extensive exemptions, which risk compromising the effectiveness of the new award method.
Most importantly, the proposal offers no way of establishing binding environmental, social and health criteria for food. Without a clear pathway, the authorities may hesitate to set ambitious requirements.
The Commission’s proposal will now enter the EU legislative process. During this process, the sustainability provisions should be discussed with greater ambition and made binding to ensure that public money delivers greater value for people, the planet and the food system.
