- 24/10/2017
- Posted by: Marta
- Category: News
The previous answer to the question on the name of the food – referred to the 'Pangoccioli' of Mulino Bianco - he offered a starting point for some comments and critical notes. (1) It is therefore worth investigating the subject.
First we must not lose sight of the general criteria on fair information practices referred to in article 7, reg. EU 1169/11.
Selling food that is different as 'bread' with respect to the concept of bread of the average consumer, it constitutes a violation of the general criteria referred to above, as well as a possible fraud in the trade (art. 515 of the Italian Penal Code).
And in any case, even if you want to go back to the details of the rules, the DPR 502/1998 in article 3 provides for the following additions
1. In the production of bread it is permitted to use, in addition to the ingredients provided for by article 14 of law no. 4, of the following substances:
a) malted cereal flours;
b) malt extracts;
c) alpha and beta amylases and other enzymes naturally present in the flours used;
d) dried sourdoughs, provided they are produced exclusively with the ingredients provided for in articles 14 and 21 of the law of 4 July 1967, n. 580. In this last case the dried sourdoughs
they can be used only for the preparation of the bread referred to in the aforementioned article 21;
e) pregelatinised wheat flours;
f) gluten;
g) food starches;
h) sugars.
2. Malt extracts and sugars are used in quantities lower than those provided for in Article 4. ' (DPR 502/1998, article 3).
Notice well that the aforementioned standard refers to sugars but not also, for example, to eggs. Nor to the wide range of ingredients referred to in the specific list of the product from which this debate has arisen.
The DPR 502/1998, in the following article 4, also admits the use of 'particular ingredients' not better specified. Thus expressing a regulatory approach that is antithetical to that expressed in the original legislation. (2) An approach which, however, is not capable of distorting the authentic meaning of the same, nor of altering the perception of the average consumer of the product designated as 'bread'.
In light of the above, the use of a name that is not in keeping with the nature of the food exposes to the serious risk of disputes by the competent Authorities. From a general point of view, these must first of all deal with the protection of consumers' interests and public health.
In particular when deceptiveness is considered the designation as 'bread' of a confectionery product. Precisely because the 'concept' or 'halo' if you prefer, that is to say the aura of wholesomeness attributed to the food does not correspond to its nature. Instead, it is food that has a different role in human nutrition, and is therefore placed in a different area of the 'food pyramid', in the nutritional guidelines.
This approach is therefore reprehensible in the IAP, AGCM, ICQRF, Criminal Court. (3)
Dario Dongo
Note
(1) Comments visible on the post to the article referred to, on the writer's LinkedIn page. On https://www.linkedin.com/in/dariodongo/
(2) See law 580/1967
(3) In fact, commercial fraud corresponds to the statutory equivalent of the sale of 'aliud pro alio'
