Birgit Christall, Monika Beutgen, Martin Einig, Marcus Girnau, Tobias Teufer

European Food and Feed Law Review, Jahrgang 18 (2023), Ausgabe 1, Seite 2 - 9

Substances for which different sources of entry in food exist, the so-called “multiple source substances”, repeatedly lead to problems in the control of food by authorities and food business operators. One reason is that for these substances it is often not clear to which legal area they belong, e.g. either to the pesticide or the contaminant legislation. The current approach to categorize findings of each substance which is listed in EU Pesticides Database of EU harmonized active substances of plant protection products always as pesticide residue – without considering the concrete source of entry in the concrete product -, does not seem to be justified. In the article, proposals are given how to deal with multiple source substances in food in a more appropriate way.

Moritz Hagenmeyer, Tobias Teufer

European Food and Feed Law Review, Jahrgang 16 (2021), Ausgabe 6, Seite 478 - 483

It is sometimes assumed that a food which is not marketable by law must also be withdrawn from the market. However, Art. 19 of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 requires a market withdrawal only for unsafe food. Is a food which is not marketable then automatically also unsafe food? This short analysis shall present the two legal concepts of ‘marketability’ on the one hand and ‘food safety’ on the other in order to answer the question and to help differentiate between not marketable and unsafe food. Is it justified to equate a lack of marketability with a classification as ‘unsafe’? Or are there essential differences between the two concepts so that there can be food which is not marketable but safe? The answers to these questions are especially important with respect to the legal consequences, in particular the issue whether it is necessary to withdraw a food from the market.

Tobias Teufer, Moritz Hagenmeyer

European Food and Feed Law Review, Jahrgang 10 (2015), Ausgabe 2, Seite 149 - 151

Tobias Teufer, Moritz Hagenmeyer, Andreas Hahn

European Food and Feed Law Review, Jahrgang 7 (2012), Ausgabe 1, Seite 28 - 52

Four years ago the second and the third authors submitted an application for authorisation of a health claim (in the shape of a disease risk reduction claim) via the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety. Their application was recently refused in a Commission Regulation relying on a negative opinion of the European Food Safety Authority. As a means of last resort the applicants have decided to challenge this Regulation and have asked the first author to represent them before the General Court of the European Union. As a measure of transparency, in order to assist the current debate of issues caused by the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation and to give interested parties an opportunity to participate, the authors make a swift convenience translation of the statement of claim dated 13/1/2012 available to the public with this article. The General Court received the pleadings on 16/01/2012 and allocated the case number T-17/12.

Carl von Jagow, Tobias Teufer

European Food and Feed Law Review, Jahrgang 2 (2007), Ausgabe 3, Seite 10

I. Introduction The basic principle of EU food law has remained unchanged by Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002: Any food operator is free to produce and sell foodstuffs in the EU without prior permission – provided the foodstuffs are safe1. Whether a foodstuff is safe must primarily be judged by the food operators themselves as Art. 17 (1) and Art. 19 (1) Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 clearly point out. However, the European legislator introduces an ev