Barbara Klaus

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 12 (2017), Issue 2, Page 165 - 166

Barbara Klaus

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 12 (2017), Issue 4, Page 348 - 351

Barbara Klaus, Giorgia Simonetti

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 10 (2015), Issue 5, Page 378 - 379

Barbara Klaus

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 10 (2015), Issue 2, Page 152 - 153

Barbara Klaus, Antonia Corini

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 10 (2015), Issue 6, Page 454 - 455

Barbara Klaus, Antonia Corini

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 10 (2015), Issue 4, Page 266 - 274

The use of health food aimed to integrate and “enrich” the diet with vitamins and minerals and/or other substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, including botanicals and preparations based on plants, algae, fungi or lichens, is continuously increasing. Unlike other jurisdictions (e.g., Canada), in the European Union and in the Member States no homogeneous legislation exists that specifically regulates food with health-functional effects on the basis of their components of plant origin. Rather, these foods are regulated, both at the European and National levels, by various regulations adopted, inter alia, over the past years. As a matter of fact, since a total harmonisation is missing, the Member States, with regard to non-harmonized aspects, are “free” to establish further rules on food supplements. The present article gives an overview of the Italian specific provisions, as well as their interpretation and application in the legal practise through Ministerial Guidelines and case law, concerning the use of food supplements containing botanicals and the indications that may be made with regard to their beneficial effects on human health.

Barbara Klaus, Michele Gherardini

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 9 (2014), Issue 2, Page 130 - 130

The Italian Antitrust Authority fined three economic operators for hidden advertising of baby milk and a baby bottle displayed in theweeklymagazine “Chi”. (Decision No 24778, of 29 January 2014, published in the Official Bulletin No 8/2014 of 24 February 2014). According to the Antitrust Authority’s decision, such advertising falls within the scope of Article 22, paragraph 2 of the Italian Consumer Code (LegislativeDecree 206/2005) according to which it shall be considered a misleading omission in the case that an economic operator “fails to identify the commercial intent of the commercial practice if not already apparent from the context, and where, in either case, this causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decisionthat theywouldnothave taken otherwise”.

Barbara Klaus, Antonia Corini

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 9 (2014), Issue 6, Page 408 - 410

On 9 September 2014 the Italian Antitrust Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza del Mercato; hereinafter, “Authority”) issued a decision (Decision No. 25087 of 9 September 2014, Official Bulletin No. 37 of 24 September 2014) against the company Named S.p.A. by reason of unfair (misleading) commercial practices pursuant to the Italian Consumer Code (which transposed Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and, in particular, pursuant to art. 20, paras. 2, 21, para. 1, letter b), 22 and 23 letter s) of the Italian Consumer Code).

Barbara Klaus, Michele Gherardini

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 8 (2013), Issue 6, Page 418 - 420

The Italian AntitrustAuthority has sanctioned a food supplement economic operator (Decision No 24280, 20.03.2013, published in the Bulletin No 13/2013) for having carried out a widespread advertising campaign in the printing press, TV commercials, web and brochures regarding a food supplement containing several botanicals highlighting special health properties, such as the prevention of cell aging as well as the improvement of the cardiovascular system, the immune system and the state of the skin or joints.

Fausto Capelli, Barbara Klaus

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 6 (2011), Issue 2, Page 88 - 95

On 25 November 2010, the European Court of Justice, in Case C-47/09, found that, by providing that the adjective “pure” may be added to the sales name of chocolate products which do not contain vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the European Law; by violating Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption as well as Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs. The present Article explains the genesis of this “chocolate dispute”, with traces back to the seventies and which shows the different understanding of consumer in the different Member States on the composition of specific categories of foodstuffs, such as chocolate products. This case is therefore a clear example for the difficult “balancing act” between guaranteeing the free movement of goods on the one hand and proper protection of consumers’ interests, particularly the right of clear information regarding the characteristics of foodstuffs offered for sale; combined with Member States’ legitimate interests in protecting the quality of food and agricultural products.