The issue of
responsibility
of
GDO
on consumer information
, as well as on food safety.
Reportage from nightmare supermarket by Auchan–Simply in central Rome, Marconi Avenue.
Expired foods
Rapidly perishable foods
from a microbiological point of view
are subject to an expiration date, which is mandatory on the label.
Fourth range products, among others, are subject to expiration dates. Distinguished by the words ‘best before’, followed by the day and month by which the food can be safely consumed .
Expired food qualifies as unsafe by absolute legal presumption, ex lege, (1) which does not admit of proof to the contrary. And is therefore subject to the dutiful corrective actions provided by the General Food Law. That is, immediate commercial recall, notification to the relevant health authority, consumer information in case the product has reached the shelves, public recall when any other action is not appropriate to ensure a high level of food safety. (2)
The Auchan-branded organic bagged salad in the refrigerated counter of the nightmarish supermarket on Marconi Avenue, however, expired the day before our report today (see photo). And the organic bagged salad we bought-though not expired-is still perished, partly rotten, unfit for human consumption. (3) Presumably due to unsuitable storage conditions, or otherwise an interruption of the cold chain.
Foods at risk
The risk assessment on the food-in both cases of actual hazard (to be ascertained by microbiological analysis) and unfit for human consumption-postulates a concrete analysis of the conditions related to the individual product.
The
reportage
in the nightmarish supermarket in central Rome dwells on a pair of pre-wrapped organic burgers under the brand name ‘La Macelleria Auchan’. Although the expiration date coincides with the day of our evening visit at 8 p.m., visual examination of the meat – grayish in color, as opposed to the pinkish color of identical ‘fresher’ reference (see comparative photos) – induces reasonable doubts about the product’s fitness for consumption.
Outlaw labels
Attention falls on the Auchan-branded ‘Breakfast Mix – Balance, with blueberries and gagji berries‘ jar.
Legality falls just as miserably, as the label under consideration has serious nonconformities in blatant violation of applicable regulations. A couple of nods:
– the term ‘
Balance
‘, referring to a food presented as superfood (because of the reference to ingredients such as blueberries and goji, as well as the image of a spoon that seems to suggest a ‘health dose’) qualifies as a generic claim suggesting a relationship between consumption of the product and a health benefit,
– however, the above generic claim is not supported, as it should be, by any specific health (or at least nutritional) claim, as required by the Nutrition & Health Claims regulation, (4)
– the characteristic ingredients ‘
dehydrated cranberries
‘ (5) e ‘
dehydrated cranberries
‘ are actually compound ingredients, which in turn include sugar and sunflower oil. However, they lack both afull indication of their ingredients (which should be displayed in descending order by weight), both the quantities of the highlighted ingredients, (6)
– l’
i
ndication of allergens
Is in all evidence outlawed. Where ‘May contain (…) other nuts’ is indicated, instead of individual ingredients that may cause allergic reactions and must therefore come specifically indicated, as the European Commission itself confirmed in 2017 in special Guidelines.
Responsibility
The three cases
set out in our brief
report
show liability in the criminal sphere (Law 283/62, Article 5, without excluding the recurrence of crimes under Articles 444 or 452 of the Criminal Code).
They also constitute
violations of regulations punishable by administrative penalties, on account of the
d.lgs. 231/17 e d.lgs. 27/17.
From Paris to Rome, the system doesn’t work And procedures need to come up to date. It is also hoped for greater vigilance by health authorities, who should also check the hygienic conditions of a nightmarish supermarket that already looks, at the very least, unseemly upon entry (see ‘welcome’ photo, an understatement).
[masterslider id=”150″]
Dario Dongo
Notes
(1) See EU reg. 1169/11, Article 24.1. ‘After the expiry date, a food is considered to be unsafe in accordance with Article 14(2) to (5) of the reg. EC 178/02.‘
(2) See reg. EC 178/02, Article 19
(3) Foods unfit for human consumption, it is recalled, themselves qualify as unsafe under Reg. EC 178/02, Article 14, paragraph 2.b, 4, 5
(4) See reg. EC 1924/06, Article 10.3
(5) Cranberries? A dubious designation in itself. It probably refers to North American cranberries, which do not correspond to the nature of blueberries as understood by the average Italian consumer
(6) In both cases the QUID (Quantity of Ingredients Declaration) is indeed referring to compound ingredients, which include sugar and sunflower oil. Instead of, as is proper, to the blueberries highlighted on the label front, in words and graphic representation. See reg. EU 1169/11, Article 22
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
