umraniye escort pendik escort
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
bodrum escort
Short Reads

Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

28.04.2020 EU law

Since the beginning of this month, the origin of the primary ingredient of a food must be clearly indicated on the product when it differs from the origin given for the product as a whole. This is the result of the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.


The details of this implementation are laid down in the Implementing Regulation 2018/775 that entered into force on April 1, 2020 (except for foods placed on the market or labelled prior to April 1, 2020, that may be marketed until the stocks are exhausted).

Such indication is compulsory (1) when the country of origin of the food is indicated on the product by any means (including symbols for instance) and (2) when the country of origin of the main ingredient differs from the country of origin of the food. Such obligation does not apply to the case of geographic terms included in customary and generic names where those terms literally indicate origin but whose common understanding is not an indication of country of origin (for example, Dijon mustard).

The main ingredient, officially called the “primary ingredient” in the EU Regulation, is defined as the ingredient representing “more than 50 % of that food or which is usually associated with the name of the food by the consumer and for which in most cases a quantitative indication is required” (Art. 2 of Regulation 1169/2011). The country of origin of the food means the country where the food is wholly obtained or produced or where the last substantial processing took place (Art. 23 of Regulation 2913/92). To recall the country of origin of the food must be given when there is a risk for the consumer to be misled on the true origin of the food (Art. 26(2) of Regulation 1169/2011, in force since December 2014).

The Implementing Regulation specifies how the origin of the primary ingredient must be indicated on the product. One can either mention the name of the country, the region or the geographical area where the main ingredient comes from or simply mention that such origin differs from the country of origin of the food product. In any case it must be easily visible and clearly legible and where appropriate indelible. Font size of the indication is also of great importance (see Art. 3 of Regulation 2018/775 for full details).

Regarding registered trade mark comprising an indication of geographical origin, specific rules concerning the application of Article 26(3) to such indications will be adopted soon. Meanwhile the Regulation 2018/775 does not apply to such case.

In Belgium, both the Ministry of Economy and the Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain are competent to control the respect of the rules on food information. In case of violation of the above rules, a penalty of up to 5.000 € per infringement can be imposed and the products concerned can be seized.


Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more