Home » Italian organic produce: concerns about the national label

Italian organic produce: concerns about the national label

8 September 2026
Roberto Pinton

Doubts about the compatibility of the trademark provided for by the law of 9 March 2022 with the principle of free movement of goods in the internal market set out in Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

We have already dealt with the national “Biologico italiano” label introduced by Law No. 23 of 9 March 2022 23 (Provisions for the protection, development and competitiveness of organic agricultural, agri-food and aquaculture production), we had already dealt with it in the July/August 2024 issue of the magazine “Alimenti&Bevande”, recalling the terse opinion expressed in 2009 by the National Institute of Agricultural Economics (INEA, now incorporated into CREA, the Council for Research and Analysis of the Agricultural Economy): “Public intervention for a national label whose purpose is to promote and give a competitive advantage to national companies does not appear feasible; a label based exclusively on the national origin of companies is permissible (and after careful calibration of its regulation) under Community law only if it is managed and promoted directly by the companies, with the exclusion of any public financial contribution“.

The reference was to Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), now included in Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and any measure having equivalent effect.

We also reported on detailed opinions from the Commission and its responses to questions that reiterated that national initiatives aimed at strengthening consumer preferences in favour of products from a Member State were to be considered incompatible with the principles on competition laid down in the Treaty because they were likely to hinder the entry into the market of products from other Member States.

What the case law says

We can add case law here:

judgment of the European Court of Justice of 12 October 1978 in Case 13/78 (Joh. Eggers sohn et co. v City of Bremen. Quality designations for spirits) – The presumption of quality linked to the location in the national territory of all or part of the production process, which thereby limits or disadvantages a production process whose stages take place in whole or in part in other Member States, is incompatible with the common market;
judgment of the European Court of Justice of 24 November 1982 in Case 249/81 (Commission of the European Communities v Ireland. Measures having equivalent effect. Encouragement of national products) – The “Buy Irish” programme launched by the Government of Eire to encourage distributors and consumers to buy national products with the “Guaranteed Irish” mark was discriminatory, aiming to replace products from other sources with national products, thus potentially affecting the pattern of Community trade and frustrating the aims of the Community;
judgment of the European Court of Justice of 13 December 1983 in Case C-222/82 (Apple and Pear Development Council v K. J. Lewis Ltd and Others. National measures to promote the production and sale of locally sourced apples and pears) – Advertising aimed at recommending the purchase of local products solely on the basis of their national origin is incompatible with the Treaty;
judgment of the European Court of Justice of 5 November 2002 in Case C-325/00 (Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany – Free movement of goods – Measures having equivalent effect – Quality and origin mark) – The “Markenqualität aus deutschen Landen” (German countryside quality mark), which emphasised the German origin of the products, had, at least potentially, restrictive effects on the free movement of goods between Member States, as it could induce consumers to buy products with the mark, excluding imported products;
judgment of the European Court of Justice of 17 June 2004 in Case C-255/03 – The Belgian State, by adopting and maintaining in force legislation granting the “Label de qualité wallone” to products manufactured or processed in Wallonia, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

Furthermore, according to the Community guidelines for State aid in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas (2022/C 485/01), promotional activities must not refer to a particular origin and the Commission will not declare compatible State aid for promotion that risks affecting the sales of products from other Member States.

When the trademark is permitted

Essentially, the current EU regulatory framework does not preclude brands certifying production in a specific territory, provided that compliance with quality standards established in specific specifications is required and guaranteed, and that a system of third-party inspections is in place to verify compliance.

A typical example is the Alto Adige/Südtirol quality mark (https://www.qualita-altoadige.com), established by Provincial Law No. 12 of December 22, 2005 (Measures to ensure quality in the food products sector and adoption of the “quality mark with indication of origin”), accessible to all operators in the Autonomous Province, provided they comply with the specifications established for the various products.

Returning to the organic sector, Austria recently notified the Commission, under the Tris procedure, of a draft law (https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/28229) introducing a national label, managed by Agrarmarkt Austria (AMA), but proposing it as an additional voluntary quality assurance system and establishing requirements for slaughterhouses, cutters, packaging and processing plants, packing and storage centers and for all links in the various supply chains. The production standards go beyond the requirements established by Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on organic production: all farms producing raw materials intended to bear the AMA label must comply with ecological measures, such as establishing biodiversity zones on arable land and pastures, and adopt stringent practices regarding fertility management, irrigation, herd management, and livestock transport. They must anticipate the sustainability requirements for packaging required by the PPWR Directive, implement a comprehensive system to ensure good hygiene practices from the harvest stage onwards. Processing requires a significant reduction in permitted additives, a ban on palm oil, minimum aging periods for meat, and more.

A diversification between “EU organic” and this sort of “super organic” might perhaps make sense in a market that is no longer a niche like the Austrian one (in 2024, 27.2% of agricultural land was organic, with an 11.4% share of the overall food market, which rose to 22.3% for fruit and vegetables and with a per capita consumption of 292 euros, compared to 88 euros in Italy[i]); whether it makes sense for Italy, where the market share has been hovering around 4% for years, is a matter of debate.

Doubts about compliance with the EU Treaty

In any case, whether it makes sense or not, doubts remain as to the consistency with EU law of the ministerial decree on the conditions and methods for awarding the Italian organic label. The ministerial decree, in the accompanying note to the notification, candidly states: “The draft decree […] arises from the need to promote and enhance Italian organic products through a specific and recognizable identifying graphic symbol, which distinguishes products obtained using organic methods, made with raw materials grown or raised in Italy.”

When asked, the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG Agri) justified its failure to intervene in the Tris procedure by arguing that Article 33, paragraph 5, of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 allows national trademarks.

But while the text provides that “national and private logos may be used in the labeling, presentation, and advertising of products complying with this Regulation,” the text itself clearly refers to aspects not yet addressed by the regulation, such as production standards for specific animal species (Article 20), which may be regulated at the national level, provided they do not restrict or impede the placing on the market of products produced in other countries.

The fundamental text that defines the Union’s values, objectives, and basic rules is the Treaty, and it is clear that no regulation can derogate from the fundamental principles established therein unless the Treaty itself expressly provides for it or the Member States have negotiated an opt-out clause.

[i] Willer, Helga, Bernhard Schlatter and Jan Trávníček (Eds.) (2026): The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2026.

Vedi anche: