{"id":1901,"date":"2026-07-13T07:31:37","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T07:31:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/?post_type=trade-perspectives&#038;p=1901"},"modified":"2026-07-13T07:31:37","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T07:31:37","slug":"13-july-2026","status":"publish","type":"trade-perspectives","link":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/trade-perspectives\/13-july-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"13 July 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>In Memoriam \u2013&nbsp;<em>Ignacio Carre\u00f1o Garc\u00eda<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Our colleague&nbsp;<em>Ignacio Carre\u00f1o Garcia<\/em>, or Nacho as he was known at&nbsp;<em>FratiniVergano<\/em>&nbsp;and among clients and friends, suddenly passed away on 28 June 2026 at the age of 54.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Beyond his professional achievements, Nacho\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To honour him and his memory,&nbsp;<em>FratiniVergano<\/em>&nbsp;is dedicating this issue of&nbsp;<em>Trade Perspectives<\/em>&nbsp;to food law, and we shall establish in his name a scholarship on international trade and food law at the&nbsp;<em>LUISS University<\/em>&nbsp;in Rome, Italy. May his beautiful soul rest in peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong><a href=\"#EU\">France\u2019s Council of State requests the Court of Justice of the EU to clarify the legal basis for the\u00a0<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>\u00a0front-of-pack nutrition labelling<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><a href=\"#ASEAN\">Food for thought: Thailand and Indonesia update their respective rules on nutritional endorsement logos and \u201c<em>summary<\/em>\u201d nutrition labelling schemes<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"#Organic\"><strong>Organic products and naturally occurring phosphonic acid: Time for an EU-wide solution?<\/strong><\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong><a href=\"#Legislation\">Recently adopted EU legislation<\/a><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h1 id=\"EU\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">France\u2019s Council of State requests the Court of Justice of the EU to clarify the legal basis for the\u00a0<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>\u00a0front-of-pack nutrition labelling<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>By Alya Mahira, Stella Nalwoga<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>,&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>and Tobias Dolle<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 26 June 2026, the French \u201c<em>Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat<\/em>\u201d (Council of State)&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conseil-etat.fr\/fr\/arianeweb\/CE\/decision\/2026-06-16\/508230\">referred<\/a>&nbsp;questions concerning the legal basis of the \u2018<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>\u2019 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&nbsp;<em>Lactalis<\/em>, challenging the compatibility of France\u2019s revised&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;methodology with the rules under the EU\u2019s&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/eli\/reg\/2011\/1169\/2018-01-01\"><em>Regulation (EU) No 1169\/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25&nbsp;October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers<\/em><\/a>&nbsp;(hereinafter, FIR).&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This article provides an overview of the EU law governing nutrition labelling and examines the updates to France\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;front-of-pack nutrition labelling and the ensuing litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>The EU\u2019s harmonised rules on nutrition labelling<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The FIR<em>&nbsp;establishes the general principles, requirements, and responsibilities governing the provision of food information<\/em>to consumers, including for the labelling of food products.&nbsp;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 (<em>e.g.<\/em>,&nbsp;unprocessed products that comprise a single ingredient or category of ingredients, an herb, a spice, or mixtures thereof). Article 30 of the FIR requires&nbsp;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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 \u2018<em>Front-of-Pack<\/em>\u2019 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 (<em>e.g.<\/em>, 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 \u2018<em>back of pack<\/em>\u2019. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Front-of-Pack nutrition labelling in the EU<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In recent years, food business operators and EU Member States have developed different FoP labelling schemes. In 2017, the&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;scheme was introduced in France and has since been adopted in a number of other EU Member States.&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;is a voluntary, colour-coded FoP labelling system that classifies foods according to their nutritional value using an algorithm, from \u201c<em>A<\/em>\u201d-green (healthiest) to \u201c<em>E<\/em>\u201d-red (least healthy).&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;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&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/food.ec.europa.eu\/food-safety\/labelling-and-nutrition\/food-information-consumers-legislation\/proposal-revision-regulation-fic_en\">considered<\/a>&nbsp;by the European Commission in 2022 and included as one of the initiatives foreseen under the EU\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Farm to Fork<\/em>&nbsp;strategy, but was never presented due to the complexities and the polarising nature of the debate.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 14 March 2025, France\u2019s Ministers for Agriculture, Agrifood and Food Sovereignty; for Health; and for the Economy and Finance, signed a&nbsp;<em>Decree<\/em>&nbsp;updating the algorithm used to determine the&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;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 \u201c<em>B<\/em>\u201d, are now classified as \u201c<em>C<\/em>\u201d, \u201c<em>D<\/em>\u201d, or \u201c<em>E<\/em>\u201d. In addition to revising the algorithm, the French authorities issued accompanying guidance classifying milk, drinking yoghurts, and flavoured milk drinks as \u201c<em>beverages<\/em>\u201d, rather than \u201c<em>foodstuffs<\/em>\u201d, for the purposes of calculating the&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Inter alia<\/em>, the revised algorithm&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/sante.gouv.fr\/actualites-presse\/presse\/communiques-de-presse\/article\/catherine-vautrin-annie-genevard-eric-lombard-yannick-neuder-et-veronique?utm_source=chatgpt.com\">aims<\/a>&nbsp;at improving \u201c<em>the differentiation between drinks according to their sugar content<\/em>\u201d, taking into account the presence of sweeteners \u201c<em>to limit their use<\/em>&nbsp;<em>as sugar substitutes<\/em>\u201d. 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&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;ratings. For example, semi-skimmed milk was downgraded from \u201c<em>A<\/em>\u201d to \u201c<em>B<\/em>\u201d, while whole milk was downgraded from \u201c<em>B<\/em>\u201d to \u201c<em>C<\/em>\u201d.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Legal challenges to France\u2019s updated Nutri-Score method<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Against this background, on 12 September 2025, French dairy products corporation&nbsp;<em>Lactalis<\/em>&nbsp;requested the Council of State to annul the&nbsp;<em>Decree<\/em>&nbsp;and the accompanying guidance, arguing that the revised&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;algorithm was incompatible with Article 35 of the FIR. Firstly,&nbsp;<em>Lactalis&nbsp;<\/em>argued that, as a nutrient declaration, the&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;must respect the distinction drawn by the Article 35 of the FIR between nutrients and energy value. According to&nbsp;<em>Lactalis<\/em>, the&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;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,&nbsp;<em>Lactalis<\/em>&nbsp;argued that the&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;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.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On 16 June 2026, France\u2019s Council of State&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conseil-etat.fr\/fr\/arianeweb\/CE\/decision\/2026-06-16\/508230\">decided<\/a>&nbsp;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<em>&nbsp;<\/em>that does not separately display each energy value and the quantities of nutrients, and whether EU Member States may recommend FoP graphic<em>&nbsp;<\/em>representation \u201c<em>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<\/em>\u201d to facilitate<em>&nbsp;<\/em>the<em>&nbsp;<\/em>\u201c<em>understanding by consumers of the nutritional value of the foodstuff\u201d<\/em>. 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.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The CJEU will now have to review these issues before referring the case back to France\u2019s Council of State for the final decision.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Taking into account relevant international standards&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Nutrition labelling schemes, such as France\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;scheme, set out mandatory product characteristics and, therefore, may constitute technical regulations within the meaning of the&nbsp;<em>World Trade Organization\u2019s<\/em>&nbsp;(hereinafter, WTO)&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wto.org\/english\/docs_e\/legal_e\/17-tbt.pdf\"><em>Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade<\/em><\/a>&nbsp;(hereinafter, TBT Agreement). According to Article 2.2 of the&nbsp;<em>TBT Agreement<\/em>, WTO Members must ensure that such technical regulations are not prepared, adopted, or applied with a view to or with the effect of \u201c<em>creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Article 2.4 of the&nbsp;<em>TBT Agreement<\/em>&nbsp;further specifies that technical regulations should be based on relevant international standards, such as the&nbsp;<em>Codex Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling<\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Commercial implications and outlook<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case, once decided on the basis of the CJEU\u2019s 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\u2019s 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&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>. Given that preliminary ruling proceedings before the CJEU typically take around 16 to 18 months, businesses utilising France\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>&nbsp;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Tobias Dolle&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 id=\"ASEAN\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><em>Food for thought<\/em>: Thailand and Indonesia update their respective rules on nutritional endorsement logos and \u201c<em>summary<\/em>\u201d nutrition labelling schemes<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>By Imelda Jo Anastasya, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, and&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>Paolo R. Vergano<\/em><\/strong><strong><em><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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 \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 logo, while Indonesia\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Food and Drug Authority&nbsp;<\/em>(<em>i.e.<\/em>,&nbsp;<em>Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan<\/em>, hereinafter, BPOM) revised the nutrient criteria and the scope of products eligible for a similar voluntary \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 logo and introduced new rules governing a mandatory \u2018<em>Nutri-Level<\/em>\u2019 summary nutrition label.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This article provides an overview of the nutrition labelling landscape in the&nbsp;<em>Association of Southeast Asian Nations&nbsp;<\/em>(hereinafter, ASEAN), discusses the recent developments in Thailand and Indonesia, and examines their commercial implications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>State-of-play regarding nutrition labelling in ASEAN<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/asean.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/ASEAN-Guidelines-on-Nutrition-Labelling-Final-Endorsed-62ACCSQ-1.pdf\"><em>ASEAN Guidelines on Nutritional Labelling<\/em><\/a>, establishing a common reference framework for the development and implementation of nutrition labelling requirements (see&nbsp;<em>TradePerspectives<\/em>,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/trade-perspectives\/6-october-2025\/#Food\">Issue No.18 of 6 October 2025<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">ASEAN Member States appear to be increasingly adopting similar approaches to nutrition labelling, which can be divided into three categories: 1)&nbsp;<a>Full nutrition labelling, which provides detailed nutritional information<\/a><a href=\"applewebdata:\/\/B8EAC06B-4BA4-46E8-AE43-91E73BF99BBC#_msocom_1\">[FV1]<\/a>&nbsp;<a href=\"applewebdata:\/\/B8EAC06B-4BA4-46E8-AE43-91E73BF99BBC#_msocom_2\">[IA2]<\/a>&nbsp;, such as Indonesia\u2019s mandatory \u2018<em>Nutrition Information Panel<\/em>\u2019; 2) \u201c<em>Summary<\/em>\u201d nutrition labelling, which presents key nutritional information in a simplified and summarised format, such as Indonesia\u2019s \u2018<em>Nutri-Level<\/em>\u2019 and Singapore\u2019s \u2018<em>Nutri-Grade<\/em>\u2019 labels; and 3) Nutrition endorsement schemes, which identify products meeting specified nutritional criteria, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand\u2019s \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 logos.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In relation to such schemes, Thailand and Indonesia have now further strengthened their respective nutrition labelling frameworks through Thailand\u2019s&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/food.fda.moph.go.th\/press-release\/hcl-no4\"><em>Notification (No. 4) B.E. 2569<\/em><\/a><em>&nbsp;<\/em>(hereinafter, Notification No. 4\/2569) and Indonesia\u2019s<a href=\"https:\/\/jdih.pom.go.id\/download\/rule\/1758\/10\/2026\/Peraturan%20Badan%20Pengawas%20Obat%20dan%20Makanan%20Nomor%2010%20Tahun%202026%20tentang%20Informasi%20Nilai%20Gizi%20pada%20Label%20Pangan%20Olahan\"><em>BPOM Regulation No. 10 of 2026<\/em><\/a>&nbsp;(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&nbsp;<strong>promote healthier diets and improve public health outcomes<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Thailand\u2019s updated nutrition criteria for the&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><strong>\u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019&nbsp;<em>logo<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Thailand\u2019s \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 logo is a voluntary front-of-pack endorsement nutrition label introduced in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/exfood.fda.moph.go.th\/law\/data\/announ_moph\/V.English\/No.373_Notification_Nutrition_Symbol.pdf\">2016<\/a>&nbsp;to provide consumers with a simple means of identifying products that meet specified nutrient criteria, as&nbsp;part of&nbsp;the Government\u2019s broader&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/food.fda.moph.go.th\/public-information\/action-plan-phase-1-en\">objective<\/a>&nbsp;of promoting healthier consumer behaviour by 2027. Nutrient criteria have been established for 15 food categories, including,&nbsp;<em>inter alia<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Notification No. 4\/2569&nbsp;<\/em>repeals and replaces the former nutrient criteria schedules for three food categories, namely for instant foods (<em>e.g<\/em>., instant noodles), snacks (<em>e.g<\/em>., potato chips), and alternative milk products (<em>i.e<\/em>., plant-based milk products). In particular,&nbsp;<em>Notification No. 4\/2569&nbsp;<\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Products falling within these categories must comply with the revised nutrient criteria in order to qualify for the \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 logo. Products authorised to display the logo before&nbsp;<em>Notification No. 4\/2569&nbsp;<\/em>entered into force benefit from a 36-month transition period to reformulate their products and meet the revised nutrient criteria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Indonesia\u2019s revised requirements for the \u2018Healthier Choice\u2019 logo and \u2018Nutri-Level\u2019 label<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>BPOM Regulation No. 10\/2026&nbsp;<\/em>revises Indonesia\u2019s requirements governing both the voluntary \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 endorsement scheme and the mandatory \u2018<em>Nutri-Level<\/em>\u2019 summary label.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Indonesia first introduced the voluntary \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 logo in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/standarpangan.pom.go.id\/oldspo\/dokumen\/peraturan\/2019\/PBPOM_Nomor_22_Tahun_2019_tentang_ING.pdf\">2019<\/a>&nbsp;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&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/peraturan.bpk.go.id\/Details\/223934\/peraturan-bpom-no-26-tahun-2021\">2021<\/a>&nbsp;to cover 20 food categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>BPOM Regulation No. 10\/2026<\/em>&nbsp;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\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Notification No. 4\/2569<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">With respect to the \u2018<em>Nutri-Level<\/em>\u2019 label, Indonesia first introduced the scheme through&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/jdih.kemkes.go.id\/documents\/keputusan-menteri-kesehatan-nomor-hk0107menkes3012026\"><em>Minister of Health Decree HK.01.07\/Menkes\/301\/2026<\/em><\/a>, issued on 14 April 2026, for ready-to-serve processed foods directly offered for sale to consumers (<em>e.g<\/em>., in restaurants and cafes) (see&nbsp;<em>TradePerspectives<\/em>,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/trade-perspectives\/18-may-2026\/#Indonesia\">Issue No. 10 of 18 May 2026<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>BPOM Regulation No. 10\/2026<\/em>&nbsp;significantly expands the scope of the scheme by requiring ready-to-drink beverages, powdered beverages, and liquid or solid beverage concentrates to display the&nbsp;<strong>\u2018<em>Nutri-Level<\/em>\u2019<\/strong>&nbsp;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 \u201c<em>A<\/em>\u201d representing the lowest levels and \u201c<em>D<\/em>\u201d representing the highest:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td><strong>Nutrient<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>A<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>B<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>C<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>D<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Sugar (g)<\/td><td>\u2264&nbsp;0.5 (no added sweeteners)<\/td><td>&gt; 0.5 &#8211; \u2264 6.0<\/td><td>&gt; 6.0 &#8211; \u2264 12.5<\/td><td>&gt; 12.5<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Salt (mg)<\/td><td>\u2264&nbsp;5.0<\/td><td>&gt; 5.0 &#8211;&nbsp;\u2264&nbsp;120.0<\/td><td>&gt; 120.0 &#8211;&nbsp;\u2264&nbsp;500.0<\/td><td>&gt; 500<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Total fat (g)<\/td><td>\u2264&nbsp;0.5<\/td><td>&gt; 0.5 &#8211; \u2264 3.0<\/td><td>&gt; 3.0 &#8211; \u2264 17.0<\/td><td>&gt; 17<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Healthier choices or consumer confusion?<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although nutrition endorsement logos and \u201c<em>summary<\/em>\u201d 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,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.jhsmr.org\/index.php\/jhsmr\/article\/view\/1178\">studies<\/a>&nbsp;have shown that consumer understanding of Thailand&#8217;s \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 logo is relatively low, while schemes comparable to Indonesia\u2019s \u2018<em>Nutri-Level<\/em>\u2019 label, such as the \u2018<em>Nutri-Score<\/em>\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s \u2018<em>Healthier Choice<\/em>\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While the&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/asean.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/ASEAN-Guidelines-on-Nutrition-Labelling-Final-Endorsed-62ACCSQ-1.pdf\"><em>ASEAN Guidelines on Nutritional Labelling<\/em><\/a>&nbsp;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 \u201c<em>single market and production base<\/em>\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Looking ahead<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>Paolo R. Vergano<\/em><\/strong><strong><em><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 id=\"Organic\" class=\"wp-block-heading\">Organic products and naturally occurring phosphonic acid: Time for an EU-wide solution?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>By&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>Amanda Carlota,&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>Paolo R. Vergano, and<\/em><\/strong><strong><em>&nbsp;Tobias Dolle<\/em><\/strong><strong><em><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This article reviews the applicable EU legal framework, Italy\u2019s regulatory approach, and considers the need for an EU-wide solution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Active substance phosphonic acid<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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)&nbsp;<em>Fosetyl-Al<\/em>, a fungicide used in conventional agriculture that breaks down into phosphonic acid during and after application; and 2)&nbsp;<em>Potassium phosphonate<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In April 2013, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission)&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/eli\/reg_impl\/2013\/369\/oj\/eng\">approved<\/a>&nbsp;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&nbsp;authorised maximum residue level (MRL) for phosphonic acid and its salts expressed as phosphonic acid is 1,000 mg\/kg pursuant to&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/ALL\/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R2619&amp;utm_source=chatgpt.com\"><em>Commission Regulation (EU) 2024\/2619 on maximum residue levels for fosetyl, potassium phosphonates and disodium phosphonate in or on certain products<\/em><\/a>. 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 \u201c<em>fertilisers, plant strengtheners, manure, soil amendments<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>No phosphonic acid in organic farming<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/agriculture.ec.europa.eu\/system\/files\/2018-11\/egtop-final-report-plant_protection_products-ii_en_1_0.pdf\">authorisation<\/a>&nbsp;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&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX:32018R0848\"><em>Regulation (EU) 2018\/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products<\/em><\/a><em>&nbsp;<\/em>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.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Potassium phosphonate<\/em>, which forms phosphonic acid, is not listed in Annex I to&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=CELEX%3A02021R1165-20260101\"><em>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/1165 of 15 July 2021 authorising certain products and substances for use in organic production and establishing their lists<\/em><\/a><em>,&nbsp;<\/em>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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Regulation of phosphonic acid in organic products<\/em><\/strong>&nbsp;<strong><em>in Italy<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.&nbsp;For plant protection products not authorised for organic production, but whose use is authorised in conventional agriculture, Italy\u2019s&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.masaf.gov.it\/flex\/cm\/pages\/ServeAttachment.php\/L\/IT\/D\/c%252F6%252F4%252FD.0138f3e16b75f1f1bf47\/P\/BLOB%3AID%3D4850\/E\/pdf?mode=download\"><em>Ministerial Decree No. 309 of 13 January 2011 on Accidental and technically unavoidable contamination of plant protection products in organic farming<\/em><\/a><em>&nbsp;<\/em>and its&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.masaf.gov.it\/flex\/cm\/pages\/ServeAttachment.php\/L\/IT\/D\/6%252Ff%252Fc%252FD.2892da3d5e75e845b7dd\/P\/BLOB%3AID%3D4850\/E\/pdf?mode=download\">Annex<\/a>notes that it is appropriate to consider 0.01 mg\/kg as the lower limit, understood as the \u201c<em>numerical threshold<\/em>\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Importantly, Italy\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Ministerial Decree No. 309\/2011<\/em>&nbsp;also introduced a temporarily applicable MRL of 1.0 mg\/kg for tree crops \u201c<em>for a period of time useful for evaluating the results of the research project on \u201cPhosphite system in organic crops from accidental or voluntary contamination \u2013 BIOFOSF-CUBE\u201d \u2013 aimed at studying the degradation phenomena of phosphonic acid within plant and plant tissues related to the problem of phosphite contamination of biological products<\/em>\u201d. The less restrictive limit applied initially until 31 December 2022 and has since been&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.masaf.gov.it\/flex\/cm\/pages\/ServeAttachment.php\/L\/IT\/D\/1%252Fa%252Fb%252FD.79dce47f0028c17add9e\/P\/BLOB%3AID%3D23909\/E\/pdf?mode=download\">extended<\/a>&nbsp;several times, most recently until&nbsp;<em>31 December 2027<\/em>. Importantly, the MRL of 1.0 mg\/kg for phosphonic acid applies \u201c<em>without prejudice, in any case, to the obligation for the control body to investigate the cause of the contamination<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Ministerial Decree 309\/2011<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In fact, Italy\u2019s&nbsp;<em>Ministerial Decree 309\/2011<\/em>&nbsp;and Article 29 of&nbsp;<em>Regulation (EU) 2018\/848<\/em>&nbsp;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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>Time for an EU-wide solution?&nbsp;<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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&nbsp;<em>Commission Regulation (EU) 2024\/2619,<\/em>&nbsp;which further notes that the Commission has requested the&nbsp;<em>European Food Safety Authority<\/em>&nbsp;(EFSA) to consider those sources when reviewing residue levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Italy\u2019s temporary derogation reflects both the existence of the issue and a practical regulatory solution. The European Commission itself has acknowledged, in its March 2026&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=celex%3A52026DC0142&amp;utm_source=chatgpt.com\">report<\/a>&nbsp;on the implementation of Article 29 of&nbsp;<em>Regulation (EU) 2018\/848&nbsp;<\/em>on \u201c<em>Measures to be taken in the event of the presence of non-authorised products or substances<\/em>\u201d 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.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s temporary derogation demonstrates that regulatory flexibility can coexist with preserving the integrity of the EU organic system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong><em>For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h1 id=\"Legislation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><a><\/a><a><\/a>Recently adopted EU legislation<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Trade Law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601549&amp;qid=1783394694292\"><em>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/1549 of 6 July 2026 suspending commercial policy measures concerning certain products from the United States of America imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020\/1646 following the adjudication of a trade dispute under the Dispute Settlement Understanding of the World Trade Organization<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601457\"><em>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/1457 of 29 June 2026 on the distribution of tariff quotas opened under Regulation (EU) 2026\/1384 of the European Parliament and of the Council addressing the negative trade-related effects of global overcapacity on the Union steel market and amending Regulation (EU) 2020\/2170<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Trade Remedies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601540&amp;qid=1783394694292\"><em>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/1540 of 6 July 2026 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of new pneumatic tyres, of rubber, of a kind used on motor cars, buses or lorries with a load index not exceeding 121 (tyres) originating in the People\u2019s Republic of China<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601428\"><em>Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026\/1428 of 1 July 2026 amending the Annex to Decision 2002\/994\/EC concerning certain protective measures with regard to the products of animal origin imported from China<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Customs Law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601022\"><em>Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026\/1022 of 30 June 2026 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015\/2446 as regards definitions, customs declarations and data elements related to the temporary EUR 3 customs duty on distance sales of imported goods in a consignment with an intrinsic value not exceeding EUR 150<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601455\"><em>Regulation (EU) 2026\/1455 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2026 on the adjustment of customs duties on imports of certain goods originating in the United States of America and opening of tariff quotas for imports of certain goods originating in the United States of America<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601461\"><em>Regulation (EU) 2026\/1461 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2026 on the non-application of customs duties on imports of certain goods<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601463\"><em>Council Regulation (EU) 2026\/1463 of 25 June 2026 amending Regulation (EU) 2021\/2278 suspending the Common Customs Tariff duties referred to in Article 56(2), point (c), of Regulation (EU) No 952\/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain agricultural and industrial products<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601422\"><em>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/1422 of 25 June 2026 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015\/2447 as regards the procedural rules concerning the proof of non-preferential origin<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Food Law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ%3AL_202601546&amp;qid=1783565219422\"><em>Commission Regulation (EU) 2026\/1546 of 8 July 2026 amending Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396\/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for benomyl, carbendazim and thiophanate-methyl in or on certain products<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601550\"><em>Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026\/1550 of 2 July 2026 amending Annexes V and XIV to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021\/404 as regards the entries for Canada, Chile and the United States in the lists of third countries, territories, or zones thereof authorised for the entry into the Union of consignments of poultry and germinal products of poultry, and of fresh meat of poultry and game birds<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Other<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/eur-lex.europa.eu\/legal-content\/EN\/TXT\/?uri=OJ:L_202601425\"><em>Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2026\/1425 of 30 June 2026 laying down rules for the application of Directive (EU) 2019\/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the calculation, verification and reporting of data on recycled plastic content in single-use plastic beverage bottles and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2023\/2683<\/em><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Imelda Jo Anastasya, Amanda Carlota, Pattranit Chantaplaboon<\/em>,<em>&nbsp;Joanna Christy, Tobias Dolle, Alya Mahira, Stella Nalwoga, and Paolo R. Vergano contributed to this issue.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Follow us on&nbsp;<\/em><em>Bluesky&nbsp;<\/em><a href=\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/fratinivergano.bsky.social\"><em>@fratinivergano.bsky.social<\/em><\/a><strong><em><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To subscribe to&nbsp;<em>Trade Perspectives<\/em><sup>\u00a9<\/sup>, please click&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/mailchi.mp\/fratinivergano.eu\/tradeperspectives_subscription\">here<\/a>. To unsubscribe, please click&nbsp;<a href=\"mailto:TradePerspectives@fratinivergano.eu?subject=Trade%20Perspectives%20Subscription\">here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1901","trade-perspectives","type-trade-perspectives","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/trade-perspectives\/1901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/trade-perspectives"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/trade-perspectives"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/trade-perspectives\/1901\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1905,"href":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/trade-perspectives\/1901\/revisions\/1905"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fratinivergano.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}