This presentation offers a critical overview of the role played by quality considerations in rich the case law of the European Court of Justice devoted to food and alcohol products. It was delivered at meeting of the 'Amicale des Referendaires' (EU Clerks Association) that took place in Luxembourg oduring the celebrations of the 60 years of the European Court of Justice and in the framework of the conference "Striking Balances".

1. Gastronomy in the case
law of the EU Courts
Alberto Alemanno - HEC Paris

3. • search

6. fortuitous

8. embedded

9. <safety as a sine qua non for
the functioning of the
internal market>

10. necessary

11. EU’s aim is ….
« well-being of its people »

12. shared

15. shared (twice)

18. contentious

19. experts vs layman advice
regulatory humilty vs command&control
technocracy vs deliberate democracy
real risks vs perceived risks
human BCA vs CBA
harm vs risk
paternalism vs ‘nudges’

20. ongoing

22. as all of this is very
well known

23. in the case law

24. Quid

25. γαστήρ
"stomach"

26. νόμος
"laws that govern"

27. how much of that in
•?

28. prima facie

30. Ceci n’est pas de la gastronomie

32. The Classics

36. acting against commonly-accepted
principles of gastronomy
in defense of a
vision of food that seem to deny the
existence of notions of quality,
wholesomeness and origin of food products

37. yet

40. ready to engage with

41. « the EU displays a general tendency to
enhance the quality of products
within the framework of the common
agricultural policy in order to promote
the reputation of those products through,
inter alia, the use of GIs »

48. chers collègues,
ask your wives whether
feta is generic
or not

49. What about quality
considerations outside of
GIs?

50. Alpha Trophos

51. Kakavetsos-Fragkopoulos

52. “A restrictive national measure may
not be justified solely on the
purported quality of a product
unless that products has a PDO”

53. overall
limited role for gastronomy, and

55. gastronomy as such is even
under threat

56. Market liberalisation efforts
provide
economic prosperity,
and

57. life expectancy

58. technological progress

59. low food prices

60. not

63. greater consumption.

68. < lifestyle risk factors >
leading causes of
NCDs

69. NCDs, like heart attacks and
strokes, cancers, diabetes and
chronic respiratory disease
account for over 63% of deaths in
the world today

70. Recognition of health impact
of risk factors on EU health
as social and health determinants in the EU

71. Historically the EU has been regulating
as goods that had to circulate freely

72. now increasingly interested in reducing
their consumption

73. To what extent the EU
may develop a lifestyle
(health) policy?

74. health claims

75. food reformulation

78. not only legally controversial

79. legitimacy
Generally dismissed as nannying
(paternalism)

80. effectiveness
To what extent lifestyle policy interventions
work?

81. design
How to realistically expect that regulation
may require people to, or not to eat, certain
foods and to do exercise

82. At a time in which international community
legitimised regulatory action vis-à-vis
lifestyle choices, EU and MS countries are
experimenting new forms of interventions

83. ‘Libertarian
paternalism’

84. plain packaging

86. HOW THEY WILL SCORE UNDER EU LAW?

87. What will be left for
?

88. As usual, the final word
will belong to