Food Contamination and Commercial Fraud: Commentary on Judgment No. 15117 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 15117 of March 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Udine, offers important food for thought on the topic of food safety and the distinction between administrative and criminal offenses. The decision focuses on a specific case of ham contamination due to the use of insecticides for pest control in the aging room. Let's analyze the details and implications of this judgment together.

The Case Examined

In the case under review, the defendant was required to answer for commercial fraud for possessing contaminated hams due to pest control treatments carried out with nebulized insecticides, which are prohibited for food products. However, the court excluded the applicability of the crime of commercial fraud, stating that it was instead an administrative offense, pursuant to Article 6, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 193 of 2007.

The Ruling's Headnote

Contamination of hams due to the use of insecticides for pest control in the aging room - Applicability of the crime of commercial fraud - Exclusion - Applicability of the administrative offense under Article 6, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 193 of 2007 - Existence. The conduct of anyone possessing hams for sale, preserved during the aging phase in rooms subjected to pest control treatments carried out with nebulized insecticides, the use of which is prohibited with regard to foodstuffs, constitutes the administrative offense under Article 6, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree of November 6, 2007, No. 193, and not the crime of commercial fraud.

This headnote underscores the importance of current regulations on food safety and the legislator's intent to protect consumer health. Legislative Decree No. 193 of 2007 establishes precise rules regarding the use of chemical substances in food treatment, and the judgment clarifies how the violation of these rules does not automatically entail the application of criminal penalties provided for commercial fraud.

Legal and Regulatory Implications

The judgment offers a useful overview for understanding the differences between various types of offenses in the food sector. In particular, it is essential to consider the following aspects:

• The crime of commercial fraud, under Articles 515 and 517 bis of the Criminal Code, requires proof of deception directed at consumers.
• Legislative Decree No. 193 of 2007 provides for specific administrative sanctions for violations related to food safety.
• The court's decision highlights the need to comply with European regulations, such as CEE Regulations No. 852 and No. 853, which govern food safety.

In conclusion, judgment No. 15117 of 2024 represents an important precedent in the field of food jurisprudence, clarifying that the contamination of food, caused by prohibited practices, constitutes an administrative offense and not a criminal offense of fraud. This distinction is crucial for the correct application of the rules, ensuring adequate protection for consumers and efficient regulation for the food sector.