Christian Ballke, Maria Kietz

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 15 (2020), Issue 4, Page 316 - 326

On 1 April this year, Regulation (EU) 2018/775 laying down rules for the application of Article 26(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011entered into force. With its commencement, the labelling of the origin of primary ingredients has now become compulsory for many products. Provided that the origin of a food is labelled and it is not congruent with the origin of the primary ingredient of the food, the country of origin or place of provenance of the primary ingredient must either additionally be declared or it can be indicated that the primary ingredient comes from a country of origin or place of provenance other than the food. The following article deals with the specific requirements of the regulation which shall now apply. In this connection and in order to provide orientation when dealing with the new provisions, the European Commission published a catalogue of questions and answers. The extent to which this guideline can keep its promise to serve as an aid for interpretation is also part of the following contribution.

Christian Ballke

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 5, Page 459 - 461

Many practitioners of food law know the phenomenon: A problem occurs where you expect it the least. This is exactly what happened in the latest amendment of the Union list of authorised novel foods. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1272 includes a correction relating to the labelling requirements for Echinacea purpurea extract from cell cultures which results in a conflict with the general rules of Regulation (EU) 1169/2011. A quick view behind ‘The Echinacea Paradox’.

Christian Ballke

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 9 (2014), Issue 5, Page 285 - 292

The Novel Food Regulation is a story full of twists and turns. It originated in the year 1997 as Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 (hereinafter: the “Novel Food Regulation”). The primary objective of the Regulation was to regulate genetically modified foods in order to take equal account of both the reservations regarding safety and ethical considerations in parts of the population. However, after only 6 years genetically modified foods were removed from the Novel Food Regulation in order to take up a new position in European law.1 Since then the novel foods remaining in the Novel Food Regulation have stood on their own regulatory feet and developed their own inherent dynamics. Contrary to other legal acts2 adopted and intensely disputed recently, the question “novel or not novel” is crucial to the marketability and hence increasingly to the final fate of products. At the same time the Novel Food Regulation is openly unable to conceal certain inherent deficits. It is possible that the European legislators recognized this when, upon the adoption of the Regulation, a report on experience from the European Commission was provided for no later than 5 years after its provisions took effect. The report on experience was to mark the commencement of reform efforts which initially appeared premature in view of what at the time was quite recent material. Over the years, however, the still valid realization took hold that the field of “novel food” itself requires revision. The following article will first outline the history of the legislative process (I.), which is followed by a brief presentation of the core points of the current draft Regulation (II.), closing with a summary and outlook for the future (III.).

Christian Ballke

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 6 (2011), Issue 3, Page 153 - 158

Foodstuffs are intended to be ingested by the consumer but communication is not restricted to the B2C area. In the modern world, the marketing of a product regularly starts with the raw material, takes several steps of processing and passes a distribution chain. Hence, communication within business is highly important for the success of a product. However, the question therefore arises if communication within business is under the same legal framework as consumer communication. This article discusses whether Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 also governs the use of nutrition and health claims made B2B. The Regulation itself does not provide for a definite answer but there are convincing arguments that nutrition and health claims, which are not addressed to the consumer, are outside the scope of the Regulation.

Christian Ballke, Ll.M.

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 4 (2009), Issue 5, Page 9

Data Protection for Health Claims I. Introduction 1. Significance of data as a company asset The impact of the Regulation (EC) 1924/20061 (Health-Claims-Regulation; in the following “HCR”) on the health-related advertising of foodstuffs is enormous.2 As provided by art. 10 (1) HCR in the future any health claim will require an authorisation by the European Commission and must be included in a Community register of authorised claims. Health c

Andreas Meisterernst, Christian Ballke

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 3 (2008), Issue 3, Page 6

I. Provision content of Article 14, para. 1 HCR 1. Legislative process and scope Claims referring to the development and health of children were included in the second reading upon the initiative of the European Parliament in the provision in Article 14, para. 1 of the Regulation. The provision is linguistically unfortunate. The reference to Article 2, para. 1, Letter b of Directive 2000/13/ EC is ineffective concerning claims on development and

Andreas Meisterernst, Christian Ballke

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 2 (2007), Issue 1, Page 7

I. Introduction Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and The Council of Ministers of 20. December 2006 concerning nutritional and health claims with respect to foods1 was enacted on 19.01.2007. Even if it first becomes valid from 1. July 2007 as directly applicable law in the whole of the EU, what can be envisaged now is that with this regulation a fundamental change in the field of food advertising will take place. For the use of