Chapter IX
The EU Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy: a Fundamental Rights Approach to Harmonise the Internal Market
p. 183-199
Résumé
The Green Deal is the new axiological compass of the European Union legislation for the near future, while the Farm to Fork Strategy sets the scene for a more sustainable, healthy, climate-neutral, consumer-oriented, and business-friendly food chain. Both acts pave the way for the proposal of new legislation which, in turn, needs to be adopted in compliance with the principle of consistency as per Article 7 TFEU. However, food sustainability presents a decisive specificity to the extent that this inherent quality must be visible and tangible to consumers. This objective is achieved through detailed labelling rules, a distinctive feature of internal market harmonisation. Labelling, in turn, impacts fundamental rights, especially those enshrined in Articles 15, 16, 35, 37 and 38 of the Charter. In light of the above, this Chapter wishes to understand whether the forthcoming legislative act will comply with the so-called integrated approach to fundamental rights, as well as be respectful of the principle of consistency. Ultimately, it is argued that such a forthcoming act will foster and streamline sustainability as one of the Union’s goals alongside the entire food production value chain, thereby contributing to making it a global standard setter.
Texte intégral
I. Introduction: an Overview of the Principle of Consistency
1The European Union (EU or the Union) legal order derives from the foundational Treaties, negotiated, and entered into by the Member States, which, in turn, have to ratify them according to their respective constitutional provisions. Hence, the principle of conferral underpins the EU, and the tripartite type competencies stem therefrom. Moreover, the entire system has been created to achieve certain objectives listed in Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), namely, for the purposes of this Chapter, the establishment of an internal market, the sustainable development of Europe, a highly competitive social market economy, the improvement of the quality of the environment, free and fair trade. However, it is difficult to ascertain just how to ensure consistency between these goals and the legislative initiatives tabled by the Commission, on the one hand, and the protection of fundamental rights and, more generally, some non-market values, on the other.
2The existence of non-market values such as, but not limited to, the classical derogations to the free movement of goods enshrined in Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has been, thanks to the extensive and settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) enriched and broadened with the so-called overriding reasons of public interest, which, in turn, have found their way both in primary law and in secondary legislation.1 As indicated in the consolidated case law of the Court, they basically reflect the sensitivity of a Member State in respect to the specific expression of its sovereignty and, obviously, need to be restrictively interpreted, and not disguise discrimination and the lack of an economic goal. Classical examples, extrapolated by the Court’s case law, are the Italian rules of the traffic code,2 or the Swedish prohibition to use engine vehicles close to the coast.3 As is well known, the list is extensive, open and susceptible to being updated.
3Whether a non-market value or an overriding reason of public interest may coincide in the doctrinal elaboration offered by the Court and legal scholars, is a different issue which will not be tackled in this Chapter. Be that as it may, the principle of consistency offers an interpretative tool to understand how to ensure, as a matter of fact, consistency between the various EU policies and actions.
4This is, indeed, dictated by a plethora of primary norms. First of all, Article 13 TEU refers to the EU institutional framework as a means to ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of the Union’s policies and actions, whereas consistency must be respected also in the EU external action as per Article 21(3) TEU. However, the most visible impact of the principle of consistency is present in Title II of the TFEU: ‘Provisions Having General Application’.4 Therefore, the EU shall ensure consistency (Article 7 TFEU5) while respecting the principle of conferral with the subsequent norms indicating additional aims: eliminating inequalities (Article 8 TFEU), protecting human health (Article 9 TFEU), combating discrimination (Article 10), promoting sustainable development, and environmental protection (Article 116), consumer protection (Article 127), as well as ensuring animal welfare (Article 138). Furthermore, it is well known that, despite different wordings, those norms are also present in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter), respectively, in Article 21 (non-discrimination), 35 (right to healthcare), 37 (right to environment) and 38 (consumer protection).
5In light of the above depicted legal framework, this Chapter aims to investigate whether the principle of consistency substantively informs the multiple legislative proposals in the pipeline following the publication of the Green Deal,9 dating back to 2019, and which, in turn, steered the Commission’s agenda during the term of 2019–24. Thus, Section 2 contextualises the Green Deal as the cornerstone of the broader Commission’s legislative proposals to render the Union greener and more sustainable. Building on this, Section 3 explores the Farm to Fork Strategy10 (F2F) as the initiatory act of a forthcoming legislative proposal on food sustainability. Section 4 links the Green Deal and the F2F through the joint reading of the fundamental rights and the principle of consistency, taking into account that the legislative proposals the Commission is tabling, respond to the consolidated logic of internal market harmonisation, based on Article 114 TFEU. Section 5 concludes by arguing that the legislative technique used is in line with the integrated approach to fundamental rights and that consistency clauses, jointly read and jointly interpreted by the Court, could be used to streamline the slow emergence of the new dimension of food sustainability, as well as making the Union a global standard setter.
II. The Green Deal as the Cornerstone of the Commission’s Legislative Proposals
6Adopted in December 2019, several weeks following the oath of the Von der Leyen’s Commission, as well as a few weeks before the outbreak of the Covid19 pandemic, the Green Deal is surely marking the pace of the Commission’s agenda.11 Indeed, it heralds the legislative initiatives the Commission wished to undertake during its five-year term of office. Thus, it is important to assess whether it is able to deliver what has been promised in order to make the Union greener and more sustainable by contrasting climate change, reducing emissions, protecting biodiversity,12 and fostering the circular economy.13 All these goals, once again, should be read jointly as a cumulative effort to be achieved through the adoption of new legislation or updating existing acts to make them more fit for purpose. In other words, it appears fair to say that the Green Deal is a type of axiological compass for forthcoming Union legislation in many different but strictly entrenched fields, from waste management to energy consumption, from fishery to agriculture, from animal farming to soil management.14
7To begin with, ‘The Green Deal will make consistent use of all policy levers: regulation and standardisation, investment and innovation, national reforms, dialogue with social partners and international cooperation. The European Pillar of Social Rights will guide action in ensuring that no one is left behind’ (para 2.1).
8The reference to the European Pillar of Social Rights15 needs to be contextualised within the origins of the principle of sustainable development, dating back to the European Council conclusions of July 2005,16 in which it was clearly stated that the principle of sustainable development encompasses three different – but, once again, strictly interrelated – dimensions: environmental policies, social policies, and economic policies. It is still being debated whether a cultural dimension may also be added to those three elements, as has already been argued by some scholars in respect to international law.17 In this sense, it is well known that many forms of production and consumption are linked to people’s culture, especially in respect to food products and habits that may be a typical expression of belonging to a certain community of peers. Furthermore, Article 13 TFEU – jointly read with Article 4.2 TEU – points towards the direction of preserving national identities and, eventually, of striking a balance with freedom of religion. Ultimately, it appears that animal welfare is acquiring a specific position in the Union narrative, although it remains to be seen just how it will be effectively streamlined in forthcoming legislative actions.18
9When it comes to food sustainability, the Green Deal makes another specific reference and paves the way for the F2F:
Food production still results in air, water and soil pollution, contributes to the loss of biodiversity and climate change, and consumes excessive amounts of natural resources, while an important part of food is wasted. At the same time, low-quality diets contribute to obesity and diseases such as cancer. (para 2.1.6).
10In this respect, the connection and the integrated approach to fundamental rights is clear to the extent that, although an autonomous right to food is lacking in the EU legal order, the Commission recalls the right to health in conjunction with the environment.
11In other words, it appears that the Green Deal endorses such an integrated approach, thereby streamlining fundamental rights and placing them at the epicentre of both legislative and non-legislative actions. Consequently, the next step is to assess, against this background, the added value of the F2F for more sustainable and resilient food systems, also ensuring that food is safe and secure.19
III. Upholding of the EU Green Deal: the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Sustainability of Food Systems
12The F2F is based on the assumption that food systems must be ameliorated in order to pursue the general goals set forth in the Green Deal. In this respect,
The provision of clear information that makes it easier for consumers to choose healthy and sustainable diets will benefit their health and quality of life, and reduce health-related costs. To empower consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable food choices, the Commission will propose harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling and will consider to propose the extension of mandatory origin or provenance indications to certain products, while fully taking into account impacts on the single market. The Commission will also examine ways to harmonise voluntary green claims and to create a sustainable labelling framework that covers, in synergy with other relevant initiatives, the nutritional, climate, environmental and social aspects of food products. The Commission will also explore new ways to provide information to consumers through other means including digital, to improve the accessibility of food information in particular for visually impaired persons. (para 2.4).
13What emerges from the above is the acknowledgement that consumers play a key role in the streamlining and fostering of food sustainability. However, the issue of how this role should be played is a different matter. In particular, the legislative technique envisaged falls within the consolidate logic of labelling as a means of empowering the consumer to make informed choices and, consequently, foster consumer welfare. This is unsurprising considering that consumer protection has been one of the areas in which the Union has always been keen on intervening, by way of ensuring the functioning of the principle of mutual recognition or by legislating. It is well known that, in Cassis de Dijon,20 the German authorities sought to persuade the Court by relying on consumer and health protection.
14However, what the Commission promises with the F2F is something different from the old but gold top-down labelling approach for the purposes of market harmonisation. It is true that labelling is a key element common in EU legislation – it suffices to recall here Regulation 1924/200621 and Regulation 1160/201122 – but the F2F intends to propose framework labelling for food sustainability and food systems, thereby addressing for the first time – at least, to the best of this author’s knowledge – the issue of food sustainability in the European Union legal order. Essentially, a brand new and binding definition of food sustainability will be created. This recalls the legislative technique underpinning Regulation 178/2002,23 which, as is known, elaborated the definition of food (Article 224) and food law (Article 3, para 125). Regulation 178/2022 has recently been amended in order to account for risks and sustainability in food chain production.26
15To put it simply, the F2F paves the way for a legislative act, which will empower consumers to make informed and sustainable choices. This aspect, once again, is to be understood through the lenses of the principle of consistency since, as it has been anticipated, there not only exists a horizontal clause aimed at enhancing consumer protection (Article 12 TFEU), but the Charter recognises it as a fundamental right (Article 38). It has been recently argued that Article 12 is the ‘inactive integration clause’.27 However, if read and applied in conjunction with the Consumer Agenda,28 its potential to shape legislation as well as implementation, may be unlocked.
16Having said so, the forthcoming act will be required to face a paramount legal definition exercise: if producers are required to label their products indicating whether a food is sustainable, one must know beforehand the component of the sustainable food. In this respect, there are no clues yet, since the proposal will be disclosed, according to the timeline annexed to the F2F, in the fourth trimester of 2023. Nonetheless, some general speculations could be made.
17First of all, it appears clear that the legislative act to be proposed will contribute to the approximation of laws and to the smooth functioning of the internal market. Hence, it could easily be based on Article 114 TFEU while taking into account horizontal clauses, especially consumer protection, animal welfare, and sustainable development. In this respect, explicit linkages should also be made to the respective fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter. Thus, if the correct identification of the proper legal basis is a constitutional requirement aimed – alongside the duty to state reasons – at the entire decision-making process, it is also undisputed that the ordinary legislative procedure will be used. In this respect, a new and welcome development is the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).29 This act, although not binding, is the key element so far available to understanding the content of the forthcoming proposal.
18The EESC’s opinion stressed that sustainability is a multidimensional concept, and that there should be pragmatism in rating sustainability. It is interesting to note that ‘A labelling framework should not aim at classifying food as sustainable or unsustainable, but should instead support the development towards a more sustainable food system’.30 The meaning of this statement is unclear to the extent that a sustainability rating system leads precisely in that direction, thereby steering both production and consumption. Furthermore, the EESC stresses that sustainable labelling, at least for the moment, should be voluntary. This appears to be at odds with the F2F, and, in general, with the legislative approach undertaken by the Commission. Furthermore, the recent proposal on explicit environmental claims makes them compulsory.31 As concerns ‘voluntary’, for instance, Regulation 1924/2006 already provides for the presence of compulsory and voluntary claims, thereby perhaps rendering a new piece of legislation unnecessary. Ultimately, the EESC underscores that eating habits are persistent and embedded into people’s cultures, and that only those who are already exposed in sustainability issues will find an interest in… sustainable labelling. This is why the forthcoming legislation should be realistic from the outset, as well as being directed toward educating people. In this sense, sustainability claims should respond to the needs of ‘reliability, transparency, relevance, accessibility and clarity’,32 and this must be achieved through a rating scale. Furthermore, this should be in the interest of the value chain and not only food.
19Concerning the EESC opinion, it remains to be seen how the Commission will consider or disregard it. In particular, considering also the recent proposal on explicit environmental claims, it is evident that the two need to be coordinated to a certain extent, and that various needs arise constantly: environmental, health and consumer protection. Having presented the possible content of the act at stake, a potential criticism may nonetheless be put forward. In the recent decade, behavioural studies have repeatedly highlighted that consumer protection may be ultimately undermined by two phenomena, the so-called ‘no-read attitude’ and the so-called ‘information overload’.33 The two go hand in hand to the extent that the latter implies that even an average and well circumspect consumer does not read the label content, while the former indicates that too much information is too complex to be processed and, consequently, adds nothing to the correct intelligibility thereof. Behavioural studies, hence, are useful in proposing alternative means of information, more intelligible and more direct, so as to allow the average consumer to make genuine, informed and, ultimately, sustainable choices. In this respect, a potential solution is given by rating systems, similar to those currently used for labelling electric products,34 as concerns energy consumption. However, indicating whether an air conditioner consumes a determined amount of energy is quite straightforward. A different approach is needed instead, to design a rating system for food sustainability. Two opposing examples may clarify this point.
20Let us assume the purchasing of meat, which, almost by definition, contributes to a high percentage of soil and water consumption, as well as emissions. It may be possible that such a package of meat would meet the criteria for being labelled as sustainable under the tenet of the social pillar of sustainability for the reason that workers employed in that industry correctly enjoy their social rights, to name but a few, the ones guaranteed by the Charter, such as the right to collective representation (Article 27), bargain (Article 28), and paid annual leave (Article 31). It may also be possible that the methodologies employed to stun and slaughter animals respect animal welfare, thereby streamlining the horizontal clauses as per Article 13 TEU. However, the environmental footprint, considering water, feed and soil consumption, not to mention transport, may be particularly high. How should such meat be labelled if a sustainable rating system is to be introduced? Therefore, once again, the importance of a binding legal definition of food sustainability integrating all the dimensions of the principle of sustainable development should be ensured.
21Secondly, it is well known that, among the EU Member States, there exist different national sensitivities and food is always perceived as an inner feature of national identity, even tied to heritage.35 ‘Fois gras’ is certainly attached to France, as ‘chorizo’ is to Spain, and ‘parmigiano’ to Italy. Who would be so insensitive as to deny the suffering of geese36 but, by the same token, could ‘fois gras’ be considered unsustainable even when produced by small manufacturers, whose environmental footprint is less extensive than larger ‘chorizo’ producers?
22Last but not least, attempts to use rating systems to attribute a sign of sustainability are politically sensitive as the nutriscore debate has showed in recent years.
23Irrespective of this, and considering the multifaceted dimensions of sustainability, a potential way out would not be a mere traffic light system of different colours, but a pictographic sign of four to five components indicating the sustainability of a specific angle. As in the aforementioned examples, a product could be sustainable when it comes to respecting animal welfare and perhaps less sustainable for the environmental footprint. In this way, the integrated approach to sustainability is streamlined across the value chain of a product, also taking into consideration the emergence of the circular economy for which a product can be sustainable according to the percentage of its packaging recycling.37
24These speculations demonstrate how sustainability management is a complex legal operation requiring the Commission’s sensitivity. And the only way to do so is by ensuring consistency in secondary law through fundamental rights.
IV. Fundamental Rights and Harmonisation: Ensuring Consistency in EU Secondary Law
25In light of the above, and bearing in mind that any theoretical speculation could easily be superseded by the forthcoming act, one may wonder how to reconcile the various fundamental rights which will underpin the Act. At first glance, the fundamental rights to be taken into account, rectius, to strike a balance with, are the following: freedom to choose an occupation (Article 15), freedom to conduct a business (Article 16), the right to property (Article 17), the right to health (Article 35), and the right to environmental (Article 37) and consumer protection (Article 38). Moreover, as has been discussed in Section 2, a decisive impact is also to be attributed to animal welfare (Article 13 TFEU), as well as to the other horizontal clauses. Considering the scope of application of the Charter, as per its Article 51, both the Commission’s legislative proposal and national measures must respect fundamental rights.
26The integrated approach indicated by the EESC is precisely the core requirement that any forthcoming legislation must respect. If fundamental rights cannot be considered in isolation of one another, it is also true that their application, when a legislative act is tabled, is left entirely in the hands of the Commission beforehand and, subsequently, in the negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council. In this scenario, the balance to be struck is ex ante, and mostly confined to the impact assessment of legislative measures, as well as discernible from the duty to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU). Ex post, instead, the Court is tasked with performing such an assessment.
27Now, it is well known that the case law of the Court is particularly rich and variegated when it comes to fundamental rights protection. For the specific purposes of this Chapter, they have been interpreted as a means to balance internal market freedoms to the extent that Member States can invoke them to restrict free movement rules. The notorious Omega38 and Schmidberger39 are perhaps the best examples and do not need to be discussed again.
28However, judgments dealing specifically with food law and fundamental rights have been quite rare to date. In the Deutsches Weintor40 case, the Court had to strike a balance between the right to health enshrined in Article 35 of the Charter, and the freedoms to choose an occupation and conduct a business as per Articles 15 and 16 thereof. In this case, a wine producer labelled its wine as easily digestible, thus putting a health claim allegedly against the prohibition of doing so for alcoholic beverages as per Regulation 1924/2006. The Court acknowledges, firstly, that ‘easily digestible’ is a claim falling within the scope of application, and, secondly, that the general aim to ensure a high level of health protection is amongst the essential goals of the Union’s legal order. The principle of proportionality also comes into play to the extent that any restriction must be proportional to the objective to be attained and, in the case at stake, the prohibition of labelling a wine as ‘easily digestible’ is proportionate, and thus, in conclusion, legitimately restricts the freedoms to conduct a business and to choose an occupation. In other words, the stricken balance tends to ensure a decisive weight to health protection.41
29What the Commission will be required to do is propose a harmonisation act capable of encompassing all the fundamental rights that may be relevant in the vast domain of food. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling may hence prove to be a promising field for testing the integrated approach to fundamental rights, and guaranteeing the proper application of horizontal clauses. These various needs – from protecting and empowering consumers to make informed choices, to streamlining sustainable development – must inevitably be coordinated with existing national legislations, especially those that have already endorsed so-called nutriscore schemes.42
30Apart from the norms specifically dedicated to the multisided dimensions of food, consumers may be empowered with other fundamental rights, such as those enshrined in Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter, thereby becoming active protagonists of specific campaigns. In legal literature, it has already been argued that consumers may boycott goods originating from a certain area where human rights violations have been ascertained.43 And the best way to do so is by informing consumers about all the relevant elements of a certain product that may be able to empower them and allow for the meaningful exercising of their fundamental rights as per Article 38 of the Charter. For instance, the Court has already declared that a good originating from a territory occupied by Israel bears the indication of the territory of origin, and that failure to do so amounts to conduct misleading consumers.44 By the same token, if customs authorities doubt the origin of a product, they can refuse the preferential treatment of goods originating from the West Bank,45 and, should the final price be increased for this reason, consumers must be aware of the fact. Ethical information46 essentially empowers consumers to make informed and sustainable choices.47
31How fundamental rights and horizontal clauses coalesce in the decision-making process of EU institutions and in the legislative proposals aimed at ensuring food sustainability remains to be seen. Certainly, an integrated approach to fundamental rights, as well as ensuring consistency in the various policy areas related to value chains of food production and consumers, are the key elements in evaluating the forthcoming proposal.
V. Concluding Remarks
32Whereas top-down harmonisation constitutes a consolidated legislative technique, especially in the field of the internal market, difficulties generally arise to the extent that the tabled legal act needs to create a definition of food sustainability.48 As has been argued throughout this Chapter, if, on the one hand, several dimensions should be encapsulated within the notion of food sustainability, the only way to do so is by streamlining fundamental rights in an integrated approach while coordinating them with horizontal clauses, in order to ensure greater consistency throughout different areas. Therefore, they should be considered not in isolation of one another but cumulatively. Put simply, once again, food sustainability cannot be conceptualised without taking into consideration, at least, health, environmental and consumer protection, while simultaneously guaranteeing sustainable development and animal welfare. This appears to be true in legislative practice – specifically in impact assessment – while tending to be absent in the Court’s case law.49
33Food labelling is a complex art to the extent that it needs to empower consumers to make sustainable choices, on the one hand, and, on the other, imposes specific duties upon undertakings. Understanding whether a product is sustainable is a difficult exercise since, as it has been posited, sustainability encapsulates several multifaceted dimensions, from the environmental print to workers’ social rights.
34Consumers will be required to play a key role in the selection of sustainable food, and behavioural studies could be used to strengthen their right to information and, ultimately, to free choice50 amongst different products competing on the same relevant market. All in all, the average and well circumspect consumer is changing too: although he needs to be protected from misleading practices, he also needs to be empowered and have his say in forthcoming proposals, as well as in shaping the Commission’s agenda as is also happening with some European Citizens’ Initiatives (ECIs) already registered and collecting statements of support.51 This demonstrates greater sensitivity on the part of citizens, as well as showing a certain degree of acceptance of food sustainability legislative choices. On a side note, it remains to be seen whether the imposition of sustainability claims and labelling will have an impact over producers established in non-Member States, which aim to expand their trade opportunities within the Union. Moreover, greater responsibilities will be placed upon the next Commission that will hopefully take the lead in verifying whether Member States have complied with their obligations in respect of food sustainability.
Notes de bas de page
1 For a general discussion on the importance of non-market values: B. De Witte, ‘A Competence to Protect: The Pursuit of Non-Market Aims through Internal Market Legislation’ in P. Syrpis (ed), The Judiciary, the Legislature and the EU Internal Market (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012).
2 Case C-110/05, Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic, ECLI:EU:C:2009:66.
3 Case C-142/05, Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, ECLI:EU:C:2009:336.
4 In general, F. Ippolito, M.E. Bartoloni and M. Condinanzi, The EU and the Proliferation of Integration Principles under the Lisbon Treaty (Abingdon, Oxon UK, Routledge, 2019).
5 N. Nic Shuibhne, ‘Deconstructing and Reconstructing Article 7 TFEU’ in F. Ippolito, M.E. Bartoloni and M. Condinanzi, The EU and the Proliferation of Integration Principles under the Lisbon Treaty (Abingdon, Oxon UK, Routledge, 2019) 160.
6 B. Sjåfjell, ‘The Environmental Integration Principle – A Necessary Step towards Policy Coherence for Sustainability’ in F. Ippolito, M.E. Bartoloni and M. Condinanzi (eds.), The EU and the Proliferation of Integration Principles under the Lisbon Treaty (Abingdon, Oxon UK, Routledge, 2019) 105.
7 F. Seatzu, ‘On the Current Meaning and Potential Effects of the Horizontal Consumer Clause of Article 12 of the TFEU’ in F. Ippolito, M.E. Bartoloni and M. Condinanzi (eds.), The EU and the Proliferation of Integration Principles under the Lisbon Treaty (Abingdon, Oxon UK, Routledge, 2019) 123.
8 J. Beqirai, ‘Animal Welfare’ in F. Ippolito, M.E. Bartoloni and M. Condinanzi (eds.), The EU and the Proliferation of Integration Principles under the Lisbon Treaty (Abingdon, Oxon UK, Routledge, 2019) 136.
9 Commission, ‘The Green Deal’ (Communication) COM(2019) 640 final.
10 Commission, ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (Communication) COM(2020) 381 final.
11 The Green Deal has already attracted scholarly attention. M. C. Carta, ‘Il Green deal europeo. Considerazioni critiche sulla tutela dell’ambiente e le iniziative di diritto UE’ (2020) Eurojus 54; E. Chiti, ‘Managing the ecological transition of the EU: The European Green Deal as a regulatory process’ (2022) CML Rev 19; M. Falcone, ‘Il “Green Deal” europeo per un continente a impatto climatico zero: la nuova strategia europea per la crescita tra sfide, responsabilità e opportunità’ (2020) Studi sull’integrazione europea 379; M. Onida, ‘Il green deal europeo’ in P. Manzini, M. Vellano (eds), Unione europea 2020 (Milano, Wolters Kluwer, 2021).
12 Commission, ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back to our lives’ (Communication) COM(2020) 380 final.
13 Commission, ‘A new Circular Economy Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe’ (Communication) COM(2020) 98 final. Stemming from this communication, see the proposal for directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules promoting the repair of goods and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, Directives (EU) 2019/771 and (EU) 2020/1828, COM(2020) 155 final 2023/0083(COD).
14 M.C. Oristano, ‘L’Unione europea e la sicurezza alimentare: il contributo della nuova politica agricola comune e delle recenti strategie ambientali elaborate dalla Commissione’ (2022) Studi sull’integrazione europea 383.
15 Commission, ‘Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights’ (Communication) COM(2017)0250 final 26.04.2017.
16 Brussels European Council, 16 and 17 June 2005, Presidency conclusions.
17 V. Guèvremont, ‘La Reconnaissance Du Pilier Culturel Du Développement Durable: Vers Un Nouveau Mode De Diffusion Des Valeurs Culturelles Au Sein De l’Ordre Juridique Mondial’ (2013) Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 163.
18 A different issue, instead, is related to wild animals that are protected under different regimes. See: F. de Witte, ‘Where the Wild Things Are: Animal Autonomy in EU Law’ (2023) CML Rev 391.
19 I. Carreno and G. Barends, ‘Safeguards in Food Law – Ensuring Food Scares are Scarce’ (2005) EL Rev 386.
20 Case 120/78 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, ECLI:EU:C:1979:42.
21 Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods [2006] OJ L404.
22 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1160/2011 of 14 November 2011 on the authorisation and refusal of authorisation of certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk [2011] OJ L296.
23 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety [2002] OJ L31. The so-called General Food Law Regulation (GFLR) has also established the European Food Safety Authority located in Parma. See also: A. Alemanno and S. Gabbi (eds), ‘Foundations of EU Food Law and Policy – Ten Years of the European Food Safety Authority’ (Farnham, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2014); B. van der Meulen and B. Wernaart (eds), ‘EU Food Law Handbook’ (Wageningen,, Wageningen University Press, 2020).
24 ‘“Food” (or “foodstuff”) means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. “Food” includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. It includes water after the point of compliance as defined in Article 6 of Directive 98/83/EC and without prejudice to the requirements of Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC. “Food” shall not include: (a) feed; (b) live animals unless they are prepared for placing on the market for human consumption; (c) plants prior to harvesting; (d) medicinal products within the meaning of Council Directives 65/65/EEC(21) and 92/73/EEC(22); (e) cosmetics within the meaning of Council Directive 76/768/EEC(23); (f) tobacco and tobacco products within the meaning of Council Directive 89/622/EEC(24); (g) narcotic or psychotropic substances within the meaning of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; (h) residues and contaminants.’
25 ‘Food law’ means the laws, regulations and administrative provisions governing food in general, and food safety in particular, whether at Community or national level; it covers any stage of production, processing and distribution of food, and also of feed produced for, or fed to, food-producing animals.’
26 Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain and amending Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, (EC) No 1829/2003, (EC) No 1831/2003, (EC) No 2065/2003, (EC) No 1935/2004, (EC) No 1331/2008, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) 2015/2283 and Directive 2001/18/EC, OJ L 231, 06.09.2019. See also: B. ní Chearnaigh, ‘Piecemeal Transparency: An Appraisal of Regulation (EU) No 2019/1381 on the Transparency and Sustainability of the EU Risk Assessment in the Food Chain’ (2021) 12(3) European Journal of Risk Regulation 699.
27 F. Casarosa, ‘The Inactive Integration Clause: Can Article 12 TFEU Shape Future Sustainable Policies?’ (2022) European Papers 1431.
28 Commission ‘New Consumer Agenda – Strengthening consumer resilience for sustainable recovery’ (Communication) COM(2020) 696 final.
29 Towards a sustainable food labelling framework to empower consumers to make sustainable food choices [2022] NAT/857-EESC-2022.
30 Ibid., para 3.2.
31 The proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims COM(2023) 166 final 2023/0085(COD). The proposal seeks also to contrast so-called greenwashing; see L. Leone, ‘Soft Normativity for Food Sustainability: an EU Code of Conduct for Businesses between Collective Responsibility and Greenwashing (2022) Rivista di diritto agroalimentare 547.
32 Towards a sustainable food labelling framework to empower consumers to make sustainable food choices [2022] NAT/857-EESC-2022, para 4.5.
33 Broad references, also to behavioural economics, can be found in J. Bobo, ‘What Behavioural Science and Risk Communication Tell Us about the Future of Food’ (2020) EJRR 245; V. Delhomme, ‘Front-of-pack Nutrition Labelling in the European Union: a Behavioural, Legal and Political Analysis’ (2021) EJRR 825; A. Sibony and G. Helleringer, ‘European Consumer Protection through the Behavorial Lens’ (2017) The Columbia Journal of European Law 607; A. Alemanno and A. Sibony (eds), ‘Nudge and the Law – A European Perspective’ (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015), especially the chapters written by A. Sibony and G. Helleringer, ‘EU Consumer Protection and Behavioural Sciences: Revolution or Reform?’ and by A. Alemanno, ‘What Can EU Health Law Learn from Behavioural Sciences? The Case of EU Lifestyle Regulation’; see also A. Alemanno and A. Garde, ‘The emergence of an EU lifestyle policy: The case of alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy diets’ (2013) CML Rev 1745; C. Macmaolain, ‘Regulating consumer information: use of food labelling and mandatory disclosures to encourage healthier lifestyle’ in A. Alemanno and A. Garde (eds), Regulating Lifestyle Risks – The EU, Alcohol, Tobacco and Unhealthy Diets (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015).
34 Regulation (EU) 2017/1369 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2017 setting a framework for energy labelling and repealing Directive 2010/30/EU [2017] OJ L198.
35 F. de Witte, ‘You Are What You Ate: Food Heritage and the EU’s Internal Market’ (2022) EL Rev 647.
36 M. C. Maffei, ‘Fois gras. Una crudeltà culturale’ (2017) Rivista giuridica dell’ambiente 537.
37 F. Munari, ‘L’economia circolare e le nuove regole dell’Unione europea sui rifiuti’ (2019) Studi sull’integrazione europea 77.
38 Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen – und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn ECLI:EU:C:2004:614.
39 Case C-112/00, Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v Republik Österreich, ECLI:EU:C:2003:333.
40 Case C-544/10, Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, ECLI:EU:C:2012:526.
41 The right to health is also explored from the perspective of non-communicable disease in A. Garde, ‘EU Law and Obesity Prevention’ (Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 2010) as well as for what concerns of public health I. Goldner Lang, ‘Public Health in European Food Law’ in T.K. Hervey, C. Alasdair Young and L.E. Bishop (eds), Research Handbook on EU Health Law and Policy (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019) 398.
42 N. Gokani, ‘Front-of-pack Nutrition Labelling: A Tussle between EU Food Law and National Measure’ (2022) EL Rev 153.
43 J. Kolieb, ‘Consuming International Law: Towards an Experimental Research Agenda for Understanding the Effects of Corporate International Humanitarian Law Violations on Consumer Buying Behavior’ (2022) Ger. Law Jour. 333.
44 Case C-363/18, Organisation juive européenne and Vignoble Psagot Ltd v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, ECLI:EU:C:2019:954.
45 Case Firma Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen C-386/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:91.
46 S. Lanni, ‘Front-of-package Food Labels and Consumer’s Autonomous Decision-making’ (2020) Rivista di diritto alimentare 57.
47 A. Di Concetto, ‘Farm Animal Welfare and Food Information for European Union Consumers: Harmonising the Regulatory Framework for More Policy Coherence’ (2023) EJRR 1; L. Paoloni, ‘La sostenibilità “etica” della filiera agroalimentare’ (2020) Rivista di diritto alimentare 5.
48 S. Arayess and A. de Boer, ‘How to Navigate the Tricky Landscape of Sustainability Claims in the Food Sector’ (2022) European Journal of Risk Regulation 643.
49 B. de Witte, ‘Conclusions. Integration Clauses – a Comparative Epilogue’ in F. Ippolito, M.E. Bartoloni and M. Condinanzi, The EU and the Proliferation of Integration Principles under the Lisbon Treaty (Abingdon, Oxon UK, Routledge, 2019) 181.
50 M. El Gemayel, ‘Food Quality in the European Union: Does the Consumer Have Free Choice?’ (2021) EJRR 236.
51 European Citizens’ Initiative for VEGAN MEAL ECI(2022)000009, registered on 18.10.2022 and open until 05.04.2024; Protect the EU’s Rural Heritage, Food Security and Supply ECI(2022)000007, registered on 07.09.2022 and open until 02.11.2023; End The Slaughter Age ECI(2022)000003, registered on 27.04.2022 and open until 05.06.2023. Legal literature is already abundant on the topic. See the latest of contributions of M. Menendez ‘The European Citizens’ Initiative: Towards a User-Friendly, Participatory and Powerful Agenda Initiative for the EU’ and J. Hiry-Lesch ‘The European Citizens’ Initiative: Caught between Executive Dominance and Judicial Restraint’ both in D. Jancić (ed), The Changing Role of Citizens in EU Democratic Governance (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2023) 213 and 233.
Auteur
-
Marco Inglese
Senior (tenure-track) Assistant Professor of European Union Law, University of Parma, Italy
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Imaginaire et création historique
Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)
2006
Socialisme ou Barbarie aujourd’hui
Analyses et témoignages
Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)
2012
Le droit romain d’hier à aujourd’hui. Collationes et oblationes
Liber amicorum en l’honneur du professeur Gilbert Hanard
Annette Ruelle et Maxime Berlingin (dir.)
2009
Représenter à l’époque contemporaine
Pratiques littéraires, artistiques et philosophiques
Isabelle Ost, Pierre Piret et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)
2010
Translatio in fabula
Enjeux d'une rencontre entre fictions et traductions
Sophie Klimis, Laurent Van Eynde et Isabelle Ost (dir.)
2010
Castoriadis et la question de la vérité
Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)
2010
