Restoring the requirement to indicate the location of the establishment on Made in Italy food products is a top priority for our supply chains. And the Italian government, after more than two years of hesitation, had finally acted on the petition we supported for this purpose.
The European Commission, following the notification of the Italian draft decree, had expressed some hesitations. Extending the so-called standstill period until October 2, 2017. (1) Great Italian Food Trade has meanwhile requested copies of the views expressed by other member states, however, running into the ‘rubber wall’ of Brussels secrets.
However, Minister Maurizio Martina decided to discontinue the ordinary course of the notification procedure. In fact, in recent days the Italian government has backtracked, withdrawing the draft measure from the TRIS system, (2) where draft national regulations bearing technical standards on the production and marketing of goods are registered. As well as on the provision of certain services.
The decree on the compulsory indication of the location of the establishment was thus taken out of the procedures necessary for its approval by the European Commission. Although such news mysteriously escaped (!) the albeit lively press office of the Ministry of Agriculture.
Apparently, the maneuver would be prodromal to a new notification. No longer framed under the TRIS system but under that provided by EU Regulation 1169/11, on consumer information on foodstuffs. (3) An unnecessary waste of time, or a planned own goal?
Minister Martina’s idea, according to rumors, would be to restrict the requirement to mention the location of the establishment on the label to processed food products only. Which in itself seems obvious to those in the industry, since the scope of the decree is limited to pre-packaged, or prepackaged products as it may be. (4)
This assumption is problematic, however, as it exposes the decree to an inevitably fragmented sectoral, case-by-case analysis. Thus, the basic rationale for the regulatory project is weakened, which-regardless of the categories of foods considered-is justified on the basis of clear and supportable needs, such as:
– Optimize the management of any food safety crises by facilitating product traceability through the availability of the location of the production facility on the label,
– Promote informed purchasing choices by consumers, who have already expressed a legitimate expectation to know where the food has been processed,
– ensure the quality of products actually made in Italy, allowing global consumers to distinguish true Made in Italy from its countless imitations (so-called Italian sounding).
The impression is that it is precisely the Italian government that is boycotting its own measure. Once again, as in the case of the decrees on the origin of pasta and rice. Getting in the way of procedures to make the European Commission stop everything.
The government’s game on closer inspection is simple:
A) safeguards the interests of international giants. (5) Big Food is obviously against transparency in labeling, as it grinds profits onItalian sounding and has an interest in relocating (6) production,
B) continues to delude voters (consumers, farmers and entrepreneurs who invest in Made in Italy food) into believing that he is carrying on the ‘battle’ to safeguard Italian production in Europe and around the world by reaffirming the factory location requirement on the label,
C) is preparing to shift the blame for thwarting the demands of Italian citizens onto Brussels. In the run-up to the next election, a bit of Euroskeptic populism always helpful in taking votes away from the oppositions.
Political linearity and transparency, AAA wanted.
Dario Dongo
Notes
(1) I.e., the transitional period within which other member states and the Commission itself can give reasoned opinions and comments on the draft national legislation, with a view to clarification by the notifying country. The latter in the meantime-and pending the green light from Brussels-must refrain from implementing the legislation under review
(2) Technical Regulations Information System Database, Directive 2015/1535/EU. Cf. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/barriers-to-trade/tris_en
(3) Reg. EU 1169/11, Article 39
(4) In line with EU Regulation 1169/11 itself, which indeed defines unitary provisions on prepacked foods only. Referring the information regulations on products sold in bulk or prepackaged to concurrent national legislation. Albeit in compliance with European sector regulations, for example in fruit and vegetables (see http://www.foodagriculturerequirements.com/category/notizie /ortofrutta-origine-e-altre-informazioni-obbligatorie)
(5) The Renziloni or Gentilrenzi governments have already shown good evidence of favoring Big Food interests over general interests. Just think of the cases of taxation on sugary drinks and kissing palmocrats, by v.Minister of Agriculture Andrea Olivero and Minister for the Environment Gian Luca Galletti
(6) See some examples of relocation, at http://www.ilfattoalimentare.it/sede-dello-stabilimento-etichetta.html
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
