Aline Wisniewski, Anja Buschulte

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 2, Page 102 - 117

Although food fraud has existed for ages it is difficult to estimate the extent of this problem because the number of documented cases is probably only a small fraction of its real dimension. In some cases food fraud can pose a serious risk to public health, as demonstrated by the melamine scandal in China in 2008. However, even if there is no direct harm to human health, this form of deliberate fraud can lead to the loss of consumers’ confidence and economic distortions. Unfortunately, even today, there is still no legal definition of food fraud either in the European Union or Germany that describes this term in detail. Against this background the first part of this article discussed the laws and regulations for food fraud in Germany and in the European Union. In this second part, the laws and regulations of the most important international trading partners of Germany, such as Brazil, the USA, China and Turkey, are examined more closely showing whether the respective countries have a definition of the term food fraud, whether the term is used explicitly in their laws and regulations and what penalties fraudsters can expect. Since only a small part of the goods can be checked when they are imported into Germany, it is important to ensure that the trading partners have comparable regulations to combat food fraud.

Patrick Coppens, Francesco Planchenstainer

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 2, Page 152 - 159

The use of nanomaterials in foods is one of the emerging areas for innovation that is addressed by EU Food Law. New applications of nanomaterials require pre-market authorisation under the Novel Foods Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 or, in the case of food additives, under Regulation (EC) 1333/2008. Under the labelling provisions (Regulation (EU) 1169/2011) the presence of engineered nanomaterials needs to be indicated in the labelling of foods. These regulations apply in all EU Member States. Recently, however, controversy has arisen, in particular in France, with a seemingly diverging application of these laws and a legal initiative to ban the use of a food additive (E171 – Titanium Dioxide) based on safety concerns because of the presence of nanoparticles. The paper describes the background and provides a legal analysis of the consistency of these developments with EU legal principles. Keywords: EU Commission; France; Labelling; Novel foods; Food additives; Nanomaterials; Precautionary principle; Titanium dioxide.

Bernd van der Meulen

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 1, Page 29 - 50

The FAO and the WHO have set up a joint food standards programme with the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its core. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has a membership base of its own. It adopts standards by consensus of its member countries, based on the scientific input from risk assessment bodies that also form part of the joint FAO/WHO food standards programme. The purpose of the standards of the Codex Alimentarius is to harmonise national and regional food legislation at a global level. This article explores to what extent the influence of the Codex Alimentarius is actually present in EU food law. To this end, it identifies the major fields of EU food law on the basis of a pre-existing framework for analysis. The article shows that the Codex Alimentarius is present in all these major fields in concepts, methods, principles and rules of conduct for food businesses. Keywords: Codex Alimentarius; EU food law.

Hanspeter Schmidt

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 1, Page 15 - 28

There is a new EU organic food law. It will go into effect as of 2021 and requires deep changes to the practice of organic farmers. It provides for complex rules for dealing with traces of agrochemicals in organic products. Organic farmers are now to draw up and maintain “precautionary measures” against pollution from conventional agriculture. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 introduces a triade of legal consequences for each case where a pesticide trace is reported in an organic food product, however low this may be: (a) an official investigation; (b) a provisional marketing stop; (c) or permanent organic decertification, where the newly required measures to avoid the contamination from conventional organic farming have not been implemented. A new organic trade culture will be needed.

Aline Wisniewski, Anja Buschulte

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 1, Page 6 - 14

Although food fraud has existed for ages it is difficult to estimate the extent of this problem as the number of documented cases is probably only a small fraction of its real dimension. In some cases food fraud can pose a serious risk to public health, as demonstrated by the melamine scandal in China 2008. However, even if there is no direct harm to human health, this form of deliberate fraud can lead to a loss of consumer confidence and economic distortions. Up to now there is unfortunately no legal definition of food fraud, either in the European Union or Germany, that describes this term in detail. Against this background the first part of this article provides an overview of the laws and regulations in Germany and the European Union that are intended to protect consumers against food fraud. For this purpose, a literature search was carried out to identify relevant legal requirements related to food fraud and the authorities responsible for combating this crime. The most important legislations in Germany are the German Food and Feed Code, Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 (GFL) and Regulation (EU) 2017/625. This article examines whether there is a definition of food fraud in Germany or Europe and aims to estimate if the existing legislation is appropriate for protecting the health and interests of consumers effectively.

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 1, Page 61 - 67

Vito Rubino

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 2, Page 134 - 141

This comment on the Port Charlotte II judgment of 14 September 2017 analyses the position taken by the Court of Justice with regard to the convergence of wine Common Market Organisation (CMO) and the EU Regulations related to the protection of geographical names of other foodstuffs. The Court, starting from some elements of the 2009 BUD II judgment, outlines the same exhaustive character in all the European regulations regarding the matter. On this basis the Court holds irrelevant the previous Portuguese protection of the name “Port- Porto” in order to evaluate the existence of an “earlier right” which could preclude the registration of the trademark Port Charlotte. In this sense the judgment sets aside the previous evaluations of the General Court in 2015, which had reached a different decision. The article analyses the consequences of the Court’s systematic approach to the matter highlighting the elements of the CMO regulation that are not in line with this judgment with specific reference to the competences of the Member States in this field. The comment concludes, therefore, with two different considerations: 1) the EU Commission must take into account this judgment in the ambit of the new regulation of execution of the Single CMO related to wines (which is being done at the present time and will replace EU Regulation No. 607/2009); 2) in the context described it is urgent to re-think the structure of GIs protection in the European Union, limiting the European protection to the best known denominations and products, and leaving the Member States an independent power to protect geographical indications and traditional mentions of other foodstuffs (whose reputation is well known only at a local level).

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 2, Page 161 - 170

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 6, Page 563 - 569

Alberto Mancuso, Luca Nicolandi, Laura Cabedo Botella, Filippo Castoldi, Marco Jermini, Andreas Wunsch, Claudio Bompard, Luigi Pisanello

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 13 (2018), Issue 3, Page 220 - 232