have a geographical significance anyway and, as far as Italy is concerned at least, carry the so-called Italian sounding. Moreover, when the use of PDO or PGI products is prescribed among the ingredients, TSG specifications also have the potential to indirectly enhance these geographical indications, but this does not benefit those who make the final food. Consequently, in the case of TSGs, it should also be the task of the public authorities to promote – when useful – their recognition (in addition to taking care of all the related controls197, in truth already largely entrusted or entrusted to the public authorities), perhaps intervening only by way of absence or substitution to the “group of producers”, while leaving it up to them to define the content of the product specifications. Such a hypothesis would be in line with what is already envisaged for the spirits sector, where an application for recognition of the relevant geographical indications can be submitted by a national authority if the producers concerned have difficulties in forming a group due to their number, geographical location or organisational characteristics198. From an idealised perspective, tradition – sacralised on a legal level in the specifications of TSGs and made available to all producers, without territorial limits – would seem to pose as the antagonist of novel foods199. However, such an apparently clear-cut and highly suggestive dichotomy would perhaps vanish, if the food label200 should show some health indications – currently highly controversial – such as the nutriscore (about which there is also debate as to how it should be structured, i.e. whether in the form of a traffic light or a battery or something else)201 or the so-called NOVAs, which instead information society, in OJ L 167 of 22 June 2001, p. 10, consolidated version of 6 June 2019, ELI: http://data.europa. eu/eli/dir/2001/29/oj. In any case, in the case of a traditional food, the period of protection of the right would have expired. 197 Reg. (EU) No. 2024/1143, cited above, Art. 56(1), on the other hand, only legitimises the “producer group” to submit an application for recognition for TSGs, as explained earlier in the text. 198 Reg. (EU) No 2024/1143, cited above, Art. 9(2). 199 Reg. (EU) No 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, in OJEU L 327, 11 December 2015, p. 1-22 (current consolidated version of 27 March 2021, ELI: http:// data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/2283/oj). I. Canfora, Foods, novel foods and traditional foods in the EU market after Regulation 2015/2283, in Dir. Alim., 1, 2016, p.29. In doctrine: S. Masini, I “Prodotti agroalimentari tradizionali”, in Trattato di diritto alimentare italiano e dell’Unione Europea, cit., part V, 2024 p. 703; A. Tommasini, Il divieto di produzione e commercializzazione di carne coltivata: tra questioni di sicurezza e limiti alla libera circolazione, in Alimenta, 2024. p. 633, 200 F. Garinelli, Le certificazione alimentari tra fantasia e diritto: il caso del biodinamico, in Diritto e giurisprudenza agraria alimentare e dell’ambiente, 2, 2022, p. 1. 201 Accademia dei Georgofili, Position on front-of-pack food labelling, in https://www.georgofili.it/ contenuti/dettaglio/12409, as well as P. Fantozzi, “Nutriscore” or “Nutrinform Battery”? - The point on the ongoing debate on some new voluntary food labelling, in https://www.georgofili.info/contenuti/risultato/14827. 362 ERMENEGILDO MARIO APPIANO
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==