On the origin of pasta, wheat and rice, the government goes into a frenzy. Literally, so much for the sake of European rules and the principle of legal certainty. And we-citizens, taxpayers, businesses-are in danger of footing an onerous bill.
Origin of pasta, wheat and rice
The Italian government, as it turned out, had prepared two special draft decrees. In which the mandatory indication of:
– origin of the semolina used in pasta, and the wheat from which it is derived, on Made in Italy pasta labels,
– origin of rice, on packages made and sold in Italy.
Waiting for the green light
Brussels had been ritually notified of the draft regulations. In compliance with European rules that require the nationallegislative process to be suspended for a minimum period of three months, pending the green light from the European Commission. (1)
At the WTO meanwhile, the U.S. and Canadian representations have initiated litigation against Italy. Alleging that its requirements on declaring the origin of milk in dairy products and theorigin of wheat in pasta would be contrary to the diktats of free trade.
A third battleground against Italy-for all its measures on compulsory indication of origin on food labels (dairy products, pasta, rice)-is the one opened by CETA. Where any company based in Canada will be able to take legal action against the Italian state, alleging that its laws hinder its business.
Between delirium and reality
The delirium came on suddenly, on 7/20/17. When Ministers Maurizio Martina and Carlo Calenda-after betraying Made in Italy with their full support for CETA-signed the decrees on the origin of rice and wheat in pasta. Announcing its imminent entry into force, in defiance of European rules that require notification and subsequent green light from Brussels for every national technical standard. A ‘grandiose delusion’ or ‘delusion of omnipotence,’ according to psychiatrists. Characterized precisely by the false representation of increasing one’s power.
In the real world, every technical standard in member states affecting goods and services must come under the scrutiny of the European Commission, subject to the appropriate procedures. (2) Where this is not the case, the rule cannot be opposed by the administered-in this case, food business operators-and indeed must be disapplied by the authorities, administrative and judicial.
Simply put, a decree containing food labeling prescriptions, when even signed by a head of state or government, is worth waste paper if it has not passed the scrutiny of Brussels. And it is in fact in Brussels that political power should be exercised. To get the go-ahead for regulations that reflect the legitimate expectations of consumers and many in the supply chain.
‘And I pay‘
Instead, signing the decrees in the absence of the green light from Brussels will drag Italy into European infringement proceedings, with serious costs for the Treasury (since violations of the rules are paid dearly) and yet another bad figure for our politicians in Europe. Meanwhile, the false proclamation of the imminent enactment of the Pasta Origin Decree, in particular, is generating turmoil among the pasta industries. Which, should they decide to trust ministerial lies, would suddenly have to review infrastructure (silos) and internal logistics procedures. As well as the several dozen labels related to each format of the beloved Made in Italy food.
Dario Dongo
Notes
(1) During the so-called standstill period, member states are allowed to express opinions and the Commission may adopt a reasoned opinion. If the national rule is deemed incompatible with common law, Brussels may require the notifying state to amend or repeal
(2) Pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC, as amended. That is, in the area of consumer information on food products, in compliance with the procedures established by Reg. EU 1169/11
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
