An inspection, a seizure, or a challenge concerning food, beverages, or medicines can raise very concrete questions: are we talking about a simple irregularity, commercial fraud, or an offense against public health? And what changes if the product has not caused ascertained harm, but has nevertheless been deemed dangerous?
I can help you distinguish the main aspects of the issue. We will see why the quality of the product, the actual risk to the community, the role held within the company, and traceability documents can lead to very different assessments. Criminal defense does not consist of generically denying the existence of a problem: it requires understanding which act is contested, which rule may apply to it, and which elements must be proven.
When non-compliance can become criminally relevant
Not every violation of sector rules constitutes a crime. Poorly stored food, an incomplete label, a disorganized internal procedure, or a non-compliant ingredient can entail administrative consequences, recall obligations, and contractual liabilities. To reach a crime against public health, it is instead necessary to verify conduct provided for by criminal law and its prerequisites, including the danger required by the specific offense.
The criminal code places articles 439 and following among crimes of common danger by means of fraud. These include, with different boundaries, the poisoning of water or food substances, the adulteration or counterfeiting of food substances, the trade of adulterated or harmful food, and the trade or administration of defective or imperfect medicines. The current text of the code can be consulted in the Italian Criminal Code on Normattiva.
The risk to health is not presumed from a word used in the report. Defining a product as "adulterated," "counterfeited," or "not genuine" is not enough, on its own, to establish the charge. What counts are the actual composition, the destination of the goods, the methods of their circulation, the results of the analyses, the batch involved, and the possibility that exposure concerns an indeterminate plurality of persons.
Food: adulteration, counterfeiting, and danger to the community
Article 440 concerns food intended for consumption and dangerous to public health. The challenge may concern the corruption, adulteration, or counterfeiting of food substances before they are placed on the market. In simple terms, the assessment is not limited to the product's non-conformity with a recipe, a specification, or a label: it must be clarified whether the alteration created the danger required by the rule.
The distinction between adulteration and counterfeiting depends on the specific act. Adulteration generally concerns the modification of the composition or characteristics of the product; counterfeiting may concern the replacement or presentation of a good as if it possessed characteristics it does not have. In both cases, it is decisive to separate commercial non-conformity from health risk. A laboratory analysis must be read together with the sampling method, the preservation of the sample, and the concrete traceability of the result to the contested product.
Poisoning and adulteration are not the same charge
Poisoning describes a more serious offense. Article 439 of the criminal code concerns the poisoning of water or substances intended for food. The Court of Cassation has highlighted that this offense is distinguished from the adulteration under Article 440 by the type of substance introduced and by its capacity to produce toxic effects such as to arouse a health alarm; for adulteration, it is instead necessary to ascertain the concrete danger deriving from the deterioration of the product. The criterion is recalled in the criminal review of the Court of Cassation.
Legal qualification follows evidence, not just the product name. A foreign substance found in a food does not automatically prove either poisoning or criminally relevant adulteration. It is necessary to establish the nature of the substance, the concentration, the possible exposure of consumers, the eventual degradation of the product, and the link between that batch and the distribution chain.
Producers and sellers may find themselves in different positions
Producing the alteration and placing the product on the market are different behaviors. The code distinguishes those who intervene on the food substance from those who, without having participated in such alteration, hold it for trade, offer it for sale, or distribute it. For this reason, it is not sufficient to identify the company involved; it must be clarified who made decisions about the product, who knew about its conditions, and who could have prevented its circulation.
The position of a production manager does not necessarily coincide with that of the distributor or the sales clerk. Real delegations, effective powers, information flows, batch blocking procedures, and awareness of the anomaly are essential facts. Criminal liability is personal: the formal role in a company does not replace the proof of conduct and the required subjective element.
Defective, imperfect, or dangerously administered medications
For pharmaceuticals, safety also concerns integrity, quality, and correct use. Articles 443 and 445 of the criminal code govern, respectively, the trade or administration of defective or imperfect medicines and the administration of medicines in a manner dangerous to public health. It is not necessary to overlap these figures with illicit acts relating to labeling, authorizations, or advertising; each level requires its own checks.
A medicine may be challenged because it is deteriorated, inadequately stored, expired, lacking declared characteristics, or distributed outside channels that ensure its integrity. The apparently regular packaging does not close the assessment. Transport and storage conditions, supply traceability, temperature registers, batch numbers, and information allowing the origin of the product to be traced can all assume relevance.
Furthermore, the counterfeiting of a drug must not be automatically confused with every bureaucratic or commercial anomaly. The defense must separate any falsification of the identity or characteristics of the medicinal product from the concrete health issue, without neglecting that a single fact can be examined from multiple perspectives. The challenge must indicate which risk is attributed to the product, to whom, and through which technical elements.
Food fraud and public health: the boundary after the 2026 law
A false indication on food does not always equate to a crime against public health. Law no. 75 of April 21, 2026, in force since May 29, 2026, introduced new offenses dedicated to food fraud and the trade of food with mendacious signs into the criminal code, repealing the previous article 516. The reform concerns in particular the genuineness and correspondence of the product to the indications on origin, provenance, quality, or quantity.
Article 517-sexies focuses on the circulation, in the exercise of economic activities, of food, water, or beverages that the subject knows are not genuine or are substantially dissimilar from what is indicated, declared, or agreed upon, when acting to deceive the purchaser and derive profit from it. Article 517-septies instead concerns the use of false or misleading signs or indications. Article 517-sexies also provides a specific exclusion from punishment for minor cases under the statutory conditions; this clause is not repeated in Article 517-septies. The text of Law no. 75 of 2026 on Normattiva allows reading the requirements and consequences of the new provisions.
The decisive point is the nature of the contested offense. If the issue concerns a falsely declared origin or a quality different from the one promised, but no danger to health emerges, the theme may fall within the area of food fraud or other illicit acts. If instead the adulterated or contaminated product is considered dangerous for the community, the different system of crimes against public safety comes into play. For facts prior to May 29, 2026, the succession of criminal rules requires a punctual comparison between previous and new regulations: the date of the complaint or the trial is not enough on its own.
Recall, withdrawal, and traceability do not replace defense
The safeguarding of the product must be timely and distinct from the procedural strategy. In the food sector, European Regulation no. 178/2002 prohibits the placing on the market of risky food and imposes safety, traceability, withdrawal, and, if necessary, recall obligations on operators. A food is considered at risk if it is harmful to health or unfit for human consumption.
Articles 18 and 19 of the regulation require being able to reconstruct suppliers and recipients of the product. When the operator believes or has reason to believe that a food does not meet safety requirements and no longer has direct control over it, they must initiate withdrawal and inform the competent authority; if the product may have already reached the consumer, they must inform them effectively and, when necessary, proceed with a recall. These rules result from Regulation (EC) no. 178/2002.
Withdrawing a batch does not equal admitting criminal liability. It is a measure aimed at preventing or reducing risk and does not eliminate the need to establish what happened, who acted, and which product is involved. Similarly, waiting for the criminal outcome before addressing a possible health emergency can worsen the problem. Proper management requires that safety initiatives be documented without altering samples, registers, or internal communications.
In an initial phase, a few concrete elements become important: which batch is indicated in the report, where and how the sample was taken, which analysis was carried out, which subjects received the product, and when the anomaly emerged. Preserving the sequence of facts makes it possible to distinguish a circumscribed defect from a dispute extended to the entire supply chain.
Defensive choices after an inspection or seizure
A seizure is not a conviction. It can serve to prevent the availability of products deemed dangerous or to preserve goods and documents useful for investigations. However, the measure must indicate its nature, the elements on which it is founded, and the goods involved. The first useful step is to understand whether the dispute concerns a health risk, commercial fraud, a sector violation, or multiple competing hypotheses.
The defense can influence the technical reconstruction of the fact. Sampling method and chain of custody matter as much as the analytical result. It is necessary to verify whether the sample represents the batch, whether it has been correctly preserved, whether a counter-sample exists, which laboratory operated, and whether the detected parameter is truly connected to the contested danger. A documentary discrepancy, for example, does not automatically prove the contamination of the food.
When statements are requested, it is essential to know beforehand the position attributed to the person involved and the subject of the dispute. Roles and knowledge must be proven separately. Who received information, who had the power to suspend distribution, and who materially carried out an activity are different questions; confusing them can lead to improper attributions of responsibility.
If the affair involves a company, even the measures adopted after the discovery of the anomaly can be relevant in reconstructing the facts, but they must not turn into an unverifiable defensive narrative. It is preferable to precisely distinguish technical data, safety communications, commercial decisions, and individual competences. An effective defense starts from consistent and chronologically ordered documents, not from generic explanations formulated after the inspection.
Frequently asked questions
Is non-compliant food always a crime?
No. Non-compliance can determine correction obligations, withdrawal, administrative sanctions, or contractual consequences without constituting an offense. For offenses against public health, it is necessary to ascertain the conduct provided for by the code and, for food adulteration, the concrete danger required by the rule. The nature of the product and the outcome of the analyses are decisive.
If the product caused no harm, can I rule out the crime?
Not necessarily. Crimes of common danger protect the community before individual harm occurs. The absence of injured parties does not eliminate a dispute on its own, but it requires carefully verifying whether the required health hazard actually existed and whether it was connected to the batch or product in question.
Does product withdrawal equal an admission of guilt?
No. Withdrawal is a safety measure and, for risky foods, can be imposed by European rules. It serves to interrupt the circulation of the product and protect consumers. Criminal liability remains a distinct issue, which requires proving conduct, personal role, awareness, and the prerequisites of the contested offense.
What is the difference between food fraud and dangerous adulteration?
Food fraud mainly concerns commercial deception. Following Law no. 75 of 2026, discrepancies relevant to origin, provenance, quality, or quantity can fall under the new offenses if the other requirements provided for are present. Dangerous adulteration instead involves public health and requires a different assessment regarding the concrete risk of the product.
Does the role held in the company matter?
Yes, but the formal title is not enough. Criminal liability does not automatically derive from corporate office. It is necessary to identify effective powers, tasks, information received, possibility of intervention, and concrete conduct. A delegate, a department manager, a director, and a distribution clerk can have very different positions regarding the same batch.
Addressing facts immediately without anticipating conclusions
In offenses affecting public health, time serves above all to preserve data and safety. If inspections, seizures, or withdrawal measures are underway, it is useful to accurately reconstruct the product, batches, samples, supply chain documents, and decisions taken. This reconstruction makes it possible to address health protection without confusing a prudential obligation with the admission of a crime. To evaluate your personal or corporate position in a concrete affair, you can contact me.