Our position in support of #obiettivoggiaggiascadop
and #OlivaTaggiascaDOP
– expressed through open letter 24.3.19 to Minister
Gian Marco Centinaio
– gathered some critical voices. Farmers and confederations debate, waiting to board TINA, the lifeboat.
PDO, an exclusive protection scheme
In 26 years of work on food supply chains between risks and opportunities, with law always in the forefront, the writer has humbly developed the idea that the European PDO protection system is really the only way forward. To try to save the agri-food specialties of our territories from the tidal wave of globalization.
The EU Court of Justice has repeatedly ruled to affirm the exclusive role of PDOs and PGIs for the protection, at least in Europe, of agri-food specificities linked to cultural traditions and human wisdom. Which apply to products that in turn reflect the uniqueness of ecosystems, non-reproducibility. (1) The system, now nearing 30 years of honored service, has proven to work well. (2) It can certainly be improved, on two fronts in particular:
– Strengthen controls in the 28 member states. The Court, in the ‘Parmesan’ case, emphasized the responsibilities of governments in ensuring controls on counterfeits, imitations and evocations of PDOs and PGIs. The European Commission is in charge of monitoring their efficiency
But instead it niches, as we have already reported.
,
– demand recognition mutuality of the Geographical Indications system, in its entirety, on all trade agreements that the EU goes to conclude with other countries. A crucial building block, for opening markets and lowering tariffs, that the Juncker Commission has instead neglected. In CETA and in the JEFTA, with the complicity of the Gentiloni and Conte governments, respectively. As well as that of 73 (out of 751) Italian MEPs.
The effectiveness and efficiency
of official public controls in Italy
, moreover, has always made it possible to foil fraud sometimes triggered by the members of some Consortia themselves, in connivance with the relevant bodies. As happened in 2015 to Parmigiano Reggiano and Grana Padano. and in more recent times at ‘Prosciuttopoli’. This too unfortunately is Italy, a country where traitors thrive to the detriment of the honest except to meet, sooner or later irretrievably, the axe of justice.
TINA, the lifeboat
The time has come for everyone, after three decades of debate, to recognize TINA, There Is No Alternative. There is no alternative to #TaggiascaDOP if you really want to safeguard Ligurian olive growing.
Trademarks represent in fact the most effective tool for protecting intellectual property on a planetary level. But their registration is not allowed when recalling a geographical location or a ‘vulgarized‘ name i.e., entered the common lexicon to designate a category of products or other concepts. Least of all when referring to a cultivar recorded. The idea of registering a collective trademark to protect Taggiasca is therefore impractical.
DNA analysis, in turn, is certainly helpful in conducting investigations and cracking down on fraud. We will resort to it as well, in an upcoming market analysis that we will have a chance to share with the relevant authorities. But genome certification is unfortunately not enough to claim exclusive use of the cultivar name on its original territory. Instead, one must:
– bind the name ‘
olive
Taggiasca
‘
To an appropriate PDO. For the specific purpose of preventing, throughout Europe, any counterfeiting, imitation or even evocation (e.g., ‘taggiasca type’) on any product that contains olives or oil not from the PDO territory,
– change the name of the
cultivar
. In this way, no one in the world will be able to name the olive ‘taggiasca’ when it does not come from the PDO territory, even if they have grown the seedlings belonging to that cultivar in other countries (e.g., Spain, Portugal, Tunisia, Turkey, California, South Africa, Asia, Australia).
The moment the cultivar has a different name, in fact, any mention on the label or advertising of the name ‘taggiasca’ may be suppressed in every corner of the planet as food fraud, consumer deception. Even regardless of the mutual recognition of European PDOs since precisely each state has the power and duty to punish food fraud to protect its consumers and ensure fair competition in its markets.
Otherwise
, Pistoia nurserymen will be able to sell millions of seedlings of the
cultivar
so named. And it will be storm of ‘
Taggiasca olives
‘ from the 5 continents, perhaps harvested earlier and ‘blackened‘ with ferrous gluconate
, until the final collapse of prices and the collapse of Ligurian olive growing, certainly unable to compete with models of extensive agriculture on an industrial scale.
#OliveTaggiascaDOP, lifeboat costs.
Individual operators who wish to join the Consortium for the protection of a PDO must, of course, undergo the checks to ensure the actual authenticity of the products they produce. And it is precisely the certification system that guarantees a higher level of controls than those provided on the generality of food, specifically regarding the identity and origin of the raw materials processed.
The ‘bureaucracy’ required to maintain the traceability of a PDO’s material flow of goods is not dissimilar to that prescribed to ensure its traceability, which has been mandatory for all operators in the supply chain since as early as 1.1.05. (3) And the Consortia themselves-in addition to the associations in the area, to which family businesses are also wont to refer, for handling various paperwork and contributions-are also tasked with helping businesses of all sizes implement the necessary registrations.
The cost of the lifeboat depends on the seriousness of those who animate it. Thrifty management, as is well suited to Ligurians, can enable the cost of the ‘PDO ticket’ for the vessel’s consortia-passengers to be minimized. The leadership team must include adequate representation of independent farmers who have been investing their labors on centuries-old olive trees in steep terrain for generations. And all together, having thrown overboard the weapons they do not need, they must turn the lifeboat into a pilot boat. Straight to the goal, to shape a shared project of quality and sustainable agriculture, aimed at enhancing a unique production in international markets.
The passionate wish we and our children should make is to protect the true Taggiasca PDO. To avoid the recurrence of lost identities, as has already happened to the Greeks with Kelemata, the Calabrians with local drupes, and various others. Who now suffer foreign competition even in the proximity stores near their homes, because the cheap little olive still knows how to be appreciated, at least for the savings of those who buy it.
There Is No Alternative, TINA!
Dario Dongo
Notes
(1) Previous censures of national and/or local collective protection marks are noted:
– Spain, brands ‘La Conca de Barbera‘, ‘El Valles Occidental‘, ‘El Ripolles‘, ‘Alimentos de Andalucia’,‘Alimentos de Extremadura‘, ‘Calidad Cantabria‘,
– France, brands ‘Normandie,’ ‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais,‘ ‘Ardennes de France,’ ‘Limousin,’ ‘Languedoc-Roussillon,‘ ‘Lorraine,’ ‘Savoie,’ ‘Franche-Comté,’ ‘Corse,’ ‘Midi- Pyrénées,‘ ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne,’ and ‘Quality France,
– Germany the label ‘Markenqualität aus deutschen Ländern‘.
European case law (EU Court of Justice, ECJ):
– ECJ Judgment, 5.11.02, Case C-325/00, Commission vs. Germany
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=47836&pageIndex=0&doclang=IT&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=24442
.
‘The Federal Republic of Germany, by granting the quality mark “Markenqualität aus deutschen Landen” (brand quality from the German countryside) to finished goods of a certain quality manufactured in Germany, has failed to fulfill its obligations under Art. 30 of the EC Treaty [now Art. 28 EC, ed.],’
– ECJ Judgment 6.3.03, Case C-6/02, Commission v. French Republic, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=48113&pageIndex=0&doclang=IT&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=24442. ‘After the entry into force of Regulation No. 2081/92 EEC, which aims precisely at exclusively defining the conditions under which the protection of a name establishing the link between certain agricultural products and foodstuffs on the one hand, and a particular geographical origin on the other hand, the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications could now be carried out only within the framework defined by this regulation‘ (item 13),
– EJC judgment 17.6.04, C-255/03, Commission C. Kingdom of Belgium
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=49295&doclang=IT
.
‘The Kingdom of Belgium, having adopted and maintained in force legislation granting “the Walloon quality mark” to finished products of a specified quality manufactured or processed in Wallonia, has failed to fulfill its obligations under Art. 28 EC‘,
– ECJ judgment 8.9.09, Case C-478/07, Budĕjovický Budvar, národní podnik vs. Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0478&qid=1553850875136&from=IT
. ‘The Community system of protection provided by Council Regulation (EC) No. 20 March 2006. 510, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, is of an exhaustive nature so that this regulation precludes the application of a system of protection provided for in treaties binding two member states such as the bilateral treaties in question which confers on a name, recognized under the law of one member state as an appellation of origin, protection in another member state where such protection is actually required when that appellation of origin has not been the subject of an application for registration under that regulation‘ (para. 117),
– ECJ judgment 8.5.14, Case C-35/13, Assica, Kraft Foods Italia SpA vs. Association of producers for the protection of “Salame Felino,” on
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0035&from=IT
.
‘Regulation (EEC) No. 2081/92 of July 14, 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 535/97 of March 17, 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not grant a scheme of protection to a geographical name without Community registration, but that the latter may be protected, where appropriate, under a national framework for geographical names concerning products for which there is no special link between their characteristics and their geographical origin, provided, however, on the one hand, that the application of such a framework does not jeopardize the objectives pursued by Regulation No. 2081/92, as amended by Regulation No. 535/97, and, on the other hand, that it does not conflict with the free movement of goods under Article 28 EC, circumstances which it is for the national court to verify.’
Italian jurisprudence:
– Constitutional Court, judgment 19.7.12 no. 191,
https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2012&numero=191
.
‘
The law of the Latium Region censured here, by aiming to promote products made in the regional area, guaranteeing such origin, produces, at least “indirectly” or “in potential,” the restrictive effects on the free movement of goods that, even the regional legislature, is prohibited from pursuing by constraint of the Community order.’
Constitutional Court, ruling 2.4.12 no. 86,
https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2012&numero=86. Consulta declares constitutional illegitimacy of trademark ‘
MEA-Marche Artisan Excellence.
‘, thank you
– Constitutional Court, ruling 8-12.4.13 no. 66, https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2013&numero=66
‘Now, the law of the Lazio Region challenged here – by introducing a ‘regional’ mark of quality intended to mark, on the basis of specifications, and in accordance with criteria, established by itself, certain agricultural and agri-food products for purposes, even declaredly, promotion of the agriculture and gastronomic culture of Latium – is undeniably likely to induce consumers to prefer products assisted by such a regional mark over similar ones, of different origin, and, consequently, to produce, at least ‘indirectly’ or ‘in potential’, the restrictive effects on the free movement of goods, which even the regional legislator is prevented from pursuing by Community constraint. To the contrary, neither the purpose of consumer protection nor the (for that matter, only virtual) character of the trademark’s ultraterritoriality – on which the respondent’s defense relies – are relevant, since, in relation to both of these profiles, the Region does not indicate, nor even has, any of its own jurisdictional title. As for the first profile, in fact, consumer protection belongs to the matter of civil law, which is reserved to the exclusive competence of the State (…); and, as for the second, it is not up to the Lazio Region to certify, as it claims, the “quality” of products on the entire national territory and that of other European states‘
(2) The European PDO and PGI protection scheme was initiated by reg. EEC 2081/92
(3) See reg. EC 178/02, Article 18. For in-depth discussion of traceability requirements prescribed by general and industry regulations, reference is made to the free ebook ‘
‘Food safety, mandatory rules and voluntary standards.
‘, at
https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/libri/sicurezza-alimentare-regole-cogenti-e-norme-volontarie-il-nuovo-libro-di-dario-dongo
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
