Consumer

Sanctions Decree, MiPAAF circular

May 18, 2018

The Sanctions Decree, d.lgs. 231/17, is finally in application. After circular 9.4.18 of the

MiSE

, here is the

circular

MiPAAF

.

Legislative Decree 231/17, a guide to reading

MiPAAF Circular 8.5.18 (1) offers a useful guide to reading Legislative Decree 231/17. Dwelling on some crucial essential aspects that distinguish reg. EU 1169/11, which the decree implements, compared to the former Legislative Decree. 109/92.

The Head of the Central Inspectorate for Quality Protection and Fraud Repression (ICQRF) – Dr. Stefano Vaccari, Author of the circular – thus first of all highlights how the obligation to report mandatory information on pre-packed foods in Italian language descends from the general criteria set forth in Reg. EU 1169/11, Article 7 (Fair information practices). (2)

The responsibility of operators Is the subject of special consideration. Having regard to both the primary responsibility of the entity under whose name or business name the food is marketed and that of the distributor.

Ecommerce

, it is emphasized, is itself subject to specific information duties

. It is therefore to be hoped that the ICQRF will also bring Amazon into line, leader

In the systematic violation

rules.

On expiration date and TMC, MiPAAF ‘highlights that there is no penalty for transferring or displaying food beyond the minimum shelf life.’ It would be worth pointing out that – albeit in the absence of a specific sanction – such conduct is nevertheless punishable under Article 7 of Reg. EU 1169/11. Where the seller fails to provide notice of the albeit harmless obsolescence of the product with outdated TMC.

Allergenic ingredients

– laudably remarks the ICQRF -must be cited exactly

, with specific regard to each of the foods offered for sale or administered.

The competence to impose penalties, it is recalled, is primarily vested in the ICQRF. To the Directors of Territorial Offices, in accordance with Ministerial Decree 1.3.18 no. 3091. However, MiPAAF refrains from referring to the concurrent competence over controls of other delegated authorities, although referred to in LD. 231/17.

The dangerous mark

The only point on which the circular cannot be agreed upon pertains to the assumption that the party responsible for the information is identified by a mark. Article 2 of Legislative Decree 231/17 actually stipulates that the indication of name or company name can also be performed through a trademark containing the respective wording.

The MiPAAF goes further, however, theorizing that ‘“name” means not only the name of the company concerned, but also an indication or fancy mark that is otherwise associated with the person responsible.’ A departure from the common rules (3) that is not only impermissible, but also exposes traders to serious risks of challenge in international markets.

For further study

reference is made to our free eBook ‘

1169 penis. Reg. EU 1169/11, food news, controls and penalties‘. With the invitation, which is renewed here, to wish to make an albeit symbolic donation to

Food Allergy Italy

.