13 July 2026
In Memoriam – Ignacio Carreño García
Our colleague Ignacio Carreño Garcia, or Nacho as he was known at FratiniVergano and among clients and friends, suddenly passed away on 28 June 2026 at the age of 54.
He will be remembered not only as a dear friend and a stellar lawyer, but also for his passion for food law. To Nacho, food law was not just a framework of regulations, procedures, compliance, or legal interpretation. It was about people, culture, risk mitigation, and trust. He always brought intellectual rigor and remarkable curiosity to every discussion, constantly seeking to understand the broader impact of the law on producers, businesses, consumers, and society. His passion was infectious, inspiring colleagues and friends alike to appreciate the vital role that food law plays in our daily lives.
Beyond his professional achievements, Nacho’s greatest legacy are the enthusiasm and generosity with which he shared his knowledge, especially with junior lawyers at the Firm, and his constant pursuit to understand and explain the linkages between law, science, and industry. Those who had the privilege of working with him will remember not only his expertise, but also his kindness, his wisdom, and the genuine joy he found in advancing a field that he loved so deeply. His influence will continue to be felt for many years to come.
To honour him and his memory, FratiniVergano is dedicating this issue of Trade Perspectives to food law, and we shall establish in his name a scholarship on international trade and food law at the LUISS University in Rome, Italy. May his beautiful soul rest in peace.
- France’s Council of State requests the Court of Justice of the EU to clarify the legal basis for the Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition labelling
- Food for thought: Thailand and Indonesia update their respective rules on nutritional endorsement logos and “summary” nutrition labelling schemes
- Organic products and naturally occurring phosphonic acid: Time for an EU-wide solution?
- Recently adopted EU legislation
France’s Council of State requests the Court of Justice of the EU to clarify the legal basis for the Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition labelling
By Alya Mahira, Stella Nalwoga, and Tobias Dolle
On 26 June 2026, the French “Conseil d’État” (Council of State) referred questions concerning the legal basis of the ‘Nutri-Score’ nutrition labelling scheme to the Court of Justice of the EU (hereinafter, CJEU). The referral is linked to litigation initiated by the French dairy products corporation Lactalis, challenging the compatibility of France’s revised Nutri-Score methodology with the rules under the EU’s Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (hereinafter, FIR).
This article provides an overview of the EU law governing nutrition labelling and examines the updates to France’s Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition labelling and the ensuing litigation.
The EU’s harmonised rules on nutrition labelling
The FIR establishes the general principles, requirements, and responsibilities governing the provision of food informationto consumers, including for the labelling of food products. Point (l) of Article 9(1) of the FIR requires a nutrition declaration on the labelling of almost all pre-packaged foodstuffs, except for those listed in Annex V (e.g., unprocessed products that comprise a single ingredient or category of ingredients, an herb, a spice, or mixtures thereof). Article 30 of the FIR requires the label to include the energy value, as well as the amounts of fat, saturates, carbohydrate, sugars, protein and salt, expressed in tabular format (if the space permits), to allow consumers to make informed and health-conscious choices.
Article 35(1) of the FIR further provides that the mandatory nutrition declaration may be complemented by a voluntary repetition of the energy value and the amount of nutrients in the principal field of vision, commonly known as the ‘Front-of-Pack’ or FoP, in order to help consumers see, at a glance, the essential nutrition information when purchasing foods. For this purpose, other forms of expression and/or presentation (e.g., graphical forms or symbols) may be used on the FoP. However, such FoP labelling may not be given in isolation, but it must be provided in addition to the full mandatory nutrition declaration typically provided on the ‘back of pack’. According to Article 35(2), EU Member States may recommend additional forms of expression and/or presentation of the nutrition declaration, provided that they comply with the criteria laid down in the FIR.
Front-of-Pack nutrition labelling in the EU
In recent years, food business operators and EU Member States have developed different FoP labelling schemes. In 2017, the Nutri-Score scheme was introduced in France and has since been adopted in a number of other EU Member States. Nutri-Score is a voluntary, colour-coded FoP labelling system that classifies foods according to their nutritional value using an algorithm, from “A”-green (healthiest) to “E”-red (least healthy). Nutri-Score has not gained acceptance across the EU, with EU Member States such as Italy opposing its adoption and other EU Member States having adopted other schemes. A proposal to establish a harmonised EU FoP nutrition labelling scheme was considered by the European Commission in 2022 and included as one of the initiatives foreseen under the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, but was never presented due to the complexities and the polarising nature of the debate.
On 14 March 2025, France’s Ministers for Agriculture, Agrifood and Food Sovereignty; for Health; and for the Economy and Finance, signed a Decree updating the algorithm used to determine the Nutri-Score of the covered foods. The revised algorithm applies stricter nutrient profiling criteria, resulting in lower ratings for certain products. For instance, artificially sweetened drinks, previously rated “B”, are now classified as “C”, “D”, or “E”. In addition to revising the algorithm, the French authorities issued accompanying guidance classifying milk, drinking yoghurts, and flavoured milk drinks as “beverages”, rather than “foodstuffs”, for the purposes of calculating the Nutri-Score. Businesses participating in the scheme were granted a two-year transition period in accordance with the revised algorithm, with full compliance required by 14 March 2027.
Inter alia, the revised algorithm aims at improving “the differentiation between drinks according to their sugar content”, taking into account the presence of sweeteners “to limit their use as sugar substitutes”. However, the revision has prompted criticism, particularly from the dairy sector, which argues that it unfairly penalises dairy products. Under the revised methodology, certain dairy products received lower Nutri-Score ratings. For example, semi-skimmed milk was downgraded from “A” to “B”, while whole milk was downgraded from “B” to “C”.
Legal challenges to France’s updated Nutri-Score method
Against this background, on 12 September 2025, French dairy products corporation Lactalis requested the Council of State to annul the Decree and the accompanying guidance, arguing that the revised Nutri-Score algorithm was incompatible with Article 35 of the FIR. Firstly, Lactalis argued that, as a nutrient declaration, the Nutri-Score must respect the distinction drawn by the Article 35 of the FIR between nutrients and energy value. According to Lactalis, the Nutri-Score is incompatible with such provision because it summarises the nutrition declaration into a single graphic representation without separately expressing the mandatory nutrition information required under Article 30 of the Regulation. Second, Lactalis argued that the Nutri-Score should take into account only the elements listed in Article 30 of the FIR. However, the revised algorithm takes into account elements that do not form part of the mandatory nutrition declaration, notably the intake of fruits, vegetables, and nuts in a product, as well as the presence of sweeteners.
On 16 June 2026, France’s Council of State decided to stay the proceedings until the CJEU had ruled on two questions of EU law that the Council considered pertinent for the resolution of the case. Firstly, whether Article 35(2) of the FIR permits an EU Member State to recommend a FoP graphic representation supplementing the mandatory nutrition declaration in Article 30 of the Regulation that does not separately display each energy value and the quantities of nutrients, and whether EU Member States may recommend FoP graphic representation “supplementing the nutrition declaration which expresses in a simple and concise manner, by means of a letter or a colour code, the overall nutritional value of foodstuffs” to facilitate the “understanding by consumers of the nutritional value of the foodstuff”. Secondly, whether such a graphic representation may take into account elements other than those listed in Article 30 of the FIR, provided that those elements are directly linked to the mandatory nutrition declaration or to other mandatory food information under the FIR.
The CJEU will now have to review these issues before referring the case back to France’s Council of State for the final decision.
Taking into account relevant international standards
Nutrition labelling schemes, such as France’s Nutri-Score scheme, set out mandatory product characteristics and, therefore, may constitute technical regulations within the meaning of the World Trade Organization’s (hereinafter, WTO) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (hereinafter, TBT Agreement). According to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, WTO Members must ensure that such technical regulations are not prepared, adopted, or applied with a view to or with the effect of “creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade”.
Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement further specifies that technical regulations should be based on relevant international standards, such as the Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling. These Codex Guidelines state that nutrient declarations should inform consumers about nutrient quantities without suggesting exact dietary requirements and recommend that supplementary nutritional information be optional and used in conjunction with (not as a replacement for) nutrient declarations. Although the questions referred to the CJEU concern the interpretation of Article 35 of the FIR, the ruling could also inform the extent to which front-of-pack nutrition labelling schemes remain consistent with internationally recognised approaches to nutrition labelling.
Commercial implications and outlook
The case, once decided on the basis of the CJEU’s inputs on the interpretation of the FIR, could have major implications for food manufacturers across the EU and the existing FoP labelling schemes. The CJEU’s interpretation of Article 35 of the FIR would determine the extent to which EU Member States can recommend or maintain simplified front-of-pack nutrition labels such as Nutri-Score. Given that preliminary ruling proceedings before the CJEU typically take around 16 to 18 months, businesses utilising France’s Nutri-Score scheme to market their products should monitor the proceedings closely and may still need to pursue compliance with the updated algorithm that will apply from March 2027.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Tobias Dolle
Food for thought: Thailand and Indonesia update their respective rules on nutritional endorsement logos and “summary” nutrition labelling schemes
By Imelda Jo Anastasya, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, and Paolo R. Vergano
In June 2026, Thailand and Indonesia updated their nutrition-labelling frameworks by amending their front-of-pack nutrition labelling requirements. More specifically, Thailand revised the nutrient criteria for its voluntary ‘Healthier Choice’ logo, while Indonesia’s Food and Drug Authority (i.e., Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan, hereinafter, BPOM) revised the nutrient criteria and the scope of products eligible for a similar voluntary ‘Healthier Choice’ logo and introduced new rules governing a mandatory ‘Nutri-Level’ summary nutrition label.
This article provides an overview of the nutrition labelling landscape in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (hereinafter, ASEAN), discusses the recent developments in Thailand and Indonesia, and examines their commercial implications.
State-of-play regarding nutrition labelling in ASEAN
Nutrition labelling, which provides information on the nutrient content of food, is intended to help consumers assess the nutritional value of a given food product. It is commonly used to encourage healthier consumer choices and reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases. Recognising the importance of providing consumers with clear, accurate, and consistent nutrition information, in August 2025, the ASEAN Member States endorsed the ASEAN Guidelines on Nutritional Labelling, establishing a common reference framework for the development and implementation of nutrition labelling requirements (see TradePerspectives, Issue No.18 of 6 October 2025).
ASEAN Member States appear to be increasingly adopting similar approaches to nutrition labelling, which can be divided into three categories: 1) Full nutrition labelling, which provides detailed nutritional information[FV1] [IA2] , such as Indonesia’s mandatory ‘Nutrition Information Panel’; 2) “Summary” nutrition labelling, which presents key nutritional information in a simplified and summarised format, such as Indonesia’s ‘Nutri-Level’ and Singapore’s ‘Nutri-Grade’ labels; and 3) Nutrition endorsement schemes, which identify products meeting specified nutritional criteria, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand’s ‘Healthier Choice’ logos.
In relation to such schemes, Thailand and Indonesia have now further strengthened their respective nutrition labelling frameworks through Thailand’s Notification (No. 4) B.E. 2569 (hereinafter, Notification No. 4/2569) and Indonesia’sBPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026 (hereinafter, BPOM Regulation No. 10/2026), which entered into force on 2 June 2026 and 17 June 2026, respectively. These developments reflect the growing use of nutrition labelling schemes across ASEAN to promote healthier diets and improve public health outcomes.
Thailand’s updated nutrition criteria for the ‘Healthier Choice’ logo
Thailand’s ‘Healthier Choice’ logo is a voluntary front-of-pack endorsement nutrition label introduced in 2016 to provide consumers with a simple means of identifying products that meet specified nutrient criteria, as part of the Government’s broader objective of promoting healthier consumer behaviour by 2027. Nutrient criteria have been established for 15 food categories, including, inter alia, instant foods, snacks, and dairy products. The nutrient criteria are developed on the basis of scientific evidence and are periodically reviewed and updated to reflect evolving nutritional and public health priorities, particularly with respect to sodium, sugar, energy, and saturated fat.
Notification No. 4/2569 repeals and replaces the former nutrient criteria schedules for three food categories, namely for instant foods (e.g., instant noodles), snacks (e.g., potato chips), and alternative milk products (i.e., plant-based milk products). In particular, Notification No. 4/2569 introduces stricter and more detailed thresholds for sodium, sugar, energy, and/or saturated fat for certain products, namely for instant noodles; fried, baked or seasoned seaweed; dried, fried, baked or seasoned meat snacks in strip or sheet form; and crispbreads, crackers, sweet biscuits, and filled wafers.
Products falling within these categories must comply with the revised nutrient criteria in order to qualify for the ‘Healthier Choice’ logo. Products authorised to display the logo before Notification No. 4/2569 entered into force benefit from a 36-month transition period to reformulate their products and meet the revised nutrient criteria.
Indonesia’s revised requirements for the ‘Healthier Choice’ logo and ‘Nutri-Level’ label
BPOM Regulation No. 10/2026 revises Indonesia’s requirements governing both the voluntary ‘Healthier Choice’ endorsement scheme and the mandatory ‘Nutri-Level’ summary label.
Indonesia first introduced the voluntary ‘Healthier Choice’ logo in 2019 to help consumers identify healthier products within specific food categories. Products may display the logo only if they satisfy the nutrient profile criteria applicable to the relevant category. The scheme initially covered ready-to-drink beverages, instant pasta, and instant noodles, before being expanded in 2021 to cover 20 food categories.
BPOM Regulation No. 10/2026 now further expands the scheme to 23 food categories by adding liquid milk and plain milk beverages, flavoured liquid milk and milk beverages, and tomato sauce. Similar to Thailand’s Notification No. 4/2569, the Regulation tightens the nutrient profile criteria applicable to products seeking to display the logo. For example, it lowers the maximum permitted sugar content for chocolate drink powder from 45 g per 100 g of product to 6.0 g per 100 ml of the prepared beverage.
With respect to the ‘Nutri-Level’ label, Indonesia first introduced the scheme through Minister of Health Decree HK.01.07/Menkes/301/2026, issued on 14 April 2026, for ready-to-serve processed foods directly offered for sale to consumers (e.g., in restaurants and cafes) (see TradePerspectives, Issue No. 10 of 18 May 2026).
BPOM Regulation No. 10/2026 significantly expands the scope of the scheme by requiring ready-to-drink beverages, powdered beverages, and liquid or solid beverage concentrates to display the ‘Nutri-Level’ label on the front of the product packaging by 17 June 2028. The label summarises the levels of sugar, salt, and total fat present in a product, with “A” representing the lowest levels and “D” representing the highest:
| Nutrient | A | B | C | D |
| Sugar (g) | ≤ 0.5 (no added sweeteners) | > 0.5 – ≤ 6.0 | > 6.0 – ≤ 12.5 | > 12.5 |
| Salt (mg) | ≤ 5.0 | > 5.0 – ≤ 120.0 | > 120.0 – ≤ 500.0 | > 500 |
| Total fat (g) | ≤ 0.5 | > 0.5 – ≤ 3.0 | > 3.0 – ≤ 17.0 | > 17 |
Healthier choices or consumer confusion?
Although nutrition endorsement logos and “summary” nutrition labelling schemes are intended to simplify nutrition information and facilitate consumer understanding, the simplified nature of such schemes has been criticised for potentially limiting their effectiveness by creating consumer confusion. For instance, studies have shown that consumer understanding of Thailand’s ‘Healthier Choice’ logo is relatively low, while schemes comparable to Indonesia’s ‘Nutri-Level’ label, such as the ‘Nutri-Score’ label adopted by various EU Member States, have also often been criticised for being difficult for consumers to interpret and for not providing meaningful information due to their summary nature.
In addition, despite the growing similarities among nutrition-labelling regimes across ASEAN, important differences remain. These include differences in product scope, nutrient criteria, and labelling formats, such as those applicable to Thailand and Indonesia’s ‘Healthier Choice’ logos. As a result, food business operators marketing products across multiple ASEAN markets are required to reformulate products, redesign labelling, or maintain separate labels to comply with country-specific requirements.
While the ASEAN Guidelines on Nutritional Labelling may promote greater regulatory convergence by encouraging ASEAN Member States to adopt common approaches, the extent to which they may reduce regulatory fragmentation will ultimately depend on their implementation at the national level. Fragmented rules on nutritional labelling do not help ASEAN to achieve the “single market and production base”, which is set out in the ASEAN Economic Community framework and reaffirmed in the ASEAN Charter, but that remains elusive especially in industries like the food sector.
Looking ahead
Businesses operating in ASEAN Member States, including Thailand and Indonesia, should closely monitor and assess developments in national nutrition labelling requirements, particularly as countries in the region continue to implement and refine front-of-pack nutrition labelling schemes. Arguably, ASEAN Member States should pursue much greater efforts to align the various schemes to facilitate compliance by food business operators and understanding by consumers.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Organic products and naturally occurring phosphonic acid: Time for an EU-wide solution?
By Amanda Carlota, Paolo R. Vergano, and Tobias Dolle
In recent times, the detection of residues of phosphonic acid has become an important compliance issue facing producers, importers, and certification bodies involved in the trade of organic products. While phosphonic acid is associated with plant protection products that are prohibited in organic farming, scientific evidence increasingly demonstrates that low residue levels may also arise from naturally occurring processes. This has created a difficult regulatory dilemma. Organic operators may face investigations, delays, or even the rejection of their products, despite the absence of any unlawful use of substances prohibited for use in cultivating organic products. Italy responded by introducing a temporary derogation for tree crops while a study is being conducted, whereas no harmonised approach currently exists at EU level.
This article reviews the applicable EU legal framework, Italy’s regulatory approach, and considers the need for an EU-wide solution.
Active substance phosphonic acid
Phosphonic acid is an active substance, which is not directly applied as such, but forms as a degradation product following the application of certain pesticides. It primarily originates from two sources: 1) Fosetyl-Al, a fungicide used in conventional agriculture that breaks down into phosphonic acid during and after application; and 2) Potassium phosphonate, which delivers phosphonic acid directly to the plant. Importantly, other potential sources include: 1) Contamination from inputs such as fertilisers or plant strengtheners (even when compliant or labelled as organic); 2) Residual presence in soil or plant material from historic treatments; and 3) Cross-contamination from conventional crops or shared equipment.
In April 2013, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) approved potassium phosphonates as a synthetic active substance for conventional plant protection. For example, in conventional, non-organic nuts, such as almonds, chestnuts, hazelnuts, pistachios, and walnuts, the authorised maximum residue level (MRL) for phosphonic acid and its salts expressed as phosphonic acid is 1,000 mg/kg pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2619 on maximum residue levels for fosetyl, potassium phosphonates and disodium phosphonate in or on certain products. Most notably, Recital (3) thereof recognises that phosphonic acid residues could also originate from sources other than the use of plant protection products, such as “fertilisers, plant strengtheners, manure, soil amendments”.
No phosphonic acid in organic farming
Previously, due to its efficient action against fungal diseases, potassium phosphonate was widely used in organic viticulture and horticulture. However, as synthetic pesticides are generally not allowed in organic production, the authorisation of potassium phosphonate for use in organic farming in the EU formally ended on 1 October 2013. Against this background, the regulatory position in organic production differs fundamentally from conventional agriculture. Organic production rules under Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products govern all areas of organic production and are based on a number of key principles, which include limiting the use of artificial fertilisers, herbicides, and pesticides.
Potassium phosphonate, which forms phosphonic acid, is not listed in Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1165 of 15 July 2021 authorising certain products and substances for use in organic production and establishing their lists, which details the active substances that may be used in organic farming. Therefore, phosphonic acid is an active substance contained in plant protection products that is not authorised for use in organic production.
Regulation of phosphonic acid in organic products in Italy
Currently, Italy appears to be the only EU Member State to have adopted a specific regulatory response addressing unavoidable phosphonic acid residues in organic products. For plant protection products not authorised for organic production, but whose use is authorised in conventional agriculture, Italy’s Ministerial Decree No. 309 of 13 January 2011 on Accidental and technically unavoidable contamination of plant protection products in organic farming and its Annexnotes that it is appropriate to consider 0.01 mg/kg as the lower limit, understood as the “numerical threshold” above which the certification of organic product cannot be granted, even in the case of accidental and technically unavoidable contamination, unless lower limits are provided for by applicable legislation for particular product categories.
Importantly, Italy’s Ministerial Decree No. 309/2011 also introduced a temporarily applicable MRL of 1.0 mg/kg for tree crops “for a period of time useful for evaluating the results of the research project on “Phosphite system in organic crops from accidental or voluntary contamination – BIOFOSF-CUBE” – aimed at studying the degradation phenomena of phosphonic acid within plant and plant tissues related to the problem of phosphite contamination of biological products”. The less restrictive limit applied initially until 31 December 2022 and has since been extended several times, most recently until 31 December 2027. Importantly, the MRL of 1.0 mg/kg for phosphonic acid applies “without prejudice, in any case, to the obligation for the control body to investigate the cause of the contamination”.
Thus, in Italy, the detection of phosphonic acid does not automatically result in the loss of organic status. This appears to be a reasonable and proportionate approach, which understands the needs of operators, while preserving the quality and safety requirements of organic produce. If residues of phosphonic acid are below the 1.0 mg/kg threshold, according to Article 2 of Italy’s Ministerial Decree 309/2011, the product may be certified as organic. At the same time, the obligation for the control body to investigate the cause of the contamination applies.
In fact, Italy’s Ministerial Decree 309/2011 and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 requires an investigation into the causes of the contamination to exclude that the residual contamination did occur intentionally or negligently. The economic operator in Italy is legally required to inform the relevant competent authority, which must launch an investigation into the causes. The product concerned may then be placed on the market as an organic product when the suspicion has been eliminated.
Time for an EU-wide solution?
The increasing detection of phosphonic acid residues in organic products has exposed gaps in the current EU regulatory framework, given the natural occurrence of phosphonic acid. While the prohibition of the use of potassium phosphonate in organic production appears legitimate, scientific evidence and regulatory practice increasingly recognise that phosphonic acid residues may originate from a variety of sources other than the use of plant protection products. This is expressed in Recital (3) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2619, which further notes that the Commission has requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to consider those sources when reviewing residue levels.
However, this recognition has not yet been fully reflected in the EU legal framework for organic production. As a result, operators producing fully compliant organic products continue to face costly investigations, delayed market access and, in some cases, rejection of products (by their customers, rather than the authorities), despite residue levels that are consistent with unavoidable natural contamination rather than unlawful use of certain plant protection products for organic production.
Italy’s temporary derogation reflects both the existence of the issue and a practical regulatory solution. The European Commission itself has acknowledged, in its March 2026 report on the implementation of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on “Measures to be taken in the event of the presence of non-authorised products or substances” in organic products, that Italy continues to apply a higher temporary threshold specifically for phosphonic acid. The report confirms that significant divergences continue to exist across the EU regarding the handling of unauthorised residues.
Against this background, there is a strong case to be made for replacing fragmented national approaches with an EU-wide harmonised solution. Such an approach should include the establishment of an EU-wide temporary or permanent threshold for phosphonic acid in organic products where scientific evidence and due diligence by the economic operators demonstrate unavoidable natural occurrence. Italy’s temporary derogation demonstrates that regulatory flexibility can coexist with preserving the integrity of the EU organic system.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Recently adopted EU legislation
Trade Law
Trade Remedies
Customs Law
Food Law
Other
Imelda Jo Anastasya, Amanda Carlota, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, Joanna Christy, Tobias Dolle, Alya Mahira, Stella Nalwoga, and Paolo R. Vergano contributed to this issue.
Follow us on Bluesky @fratinivergano.bsky.social
To subscribe to Trade Perspectives©, please click here. To unsubscribe, please click here.