Food traceability, sanctions in Italy up to 150,000 euros

The Italian legislator, with law April 21, 2026, no. 75 – Sanctioning provisions to protect Italian food products, effective from May 29, 2026 – has introduced a significant reform in the regime of sanctions in the field of food law in Italy.

Law 75/2006, as has been seen, has introduced the offenses of Food fraud (art. 517-sexies penal code) and of Trade of food with misleading labels (art. 517-septies). In addition to increasing the main penalties and introducing accessory penalties for food-related crimes.

The reform has also extended cases of administrative liability of entities and increased administrative sanctions – up to 3% of turnover annual, within a limit of 150,000 euros – for violations of European rules concerning traceability of agri-food products. Following is an in-depth analysis.

Traceability, the EU rules

Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, so-called General Food Law, introduced in article 18 the duties of traceability which apply to:

• food and feed (as defined in articles 2 and 3.1.4);
• animals intended for food production;
• ‘any other substance intended or suitable to become part of a food or feed’.

Traceability ‘is arranged in all stages of production, processing and distribution’, including primary production, import, wholesale distribution and supply, in a ‘from farm to fork’, or ‘from stable to table’.

The general requirements

All operators who participate in the aforementioned supply chains must therefore:

• ‘be able to identify who has supplied them with a food, a feed, an animal intended for food production or any substance intended or likely to become part of a food or feed’;
• ‘have systems and procedures that allow the provision of relevant information to the competent authorities that request it’;
• ‘have systems and procedures to identify the businesses to which they have supplied their products. The relevant information is made available to the competent authorities that request it’;
• label or in any case identify adequately foods and feeds placed or intended to be placed on the single market ‘to facilitate their traceability, through documentation or relevant information in accordance with the requirements established by more specific provisions’.

The general requirements are therefore limited to defining a ‘chain’ traceability system, where each operator in the supply chain must be able to trace back to their suppliers – previous link in the chain – and to the recipients of their goods (excluding final consumers), that is, the next link.

It is not prescribed for the majority of foods and beverages, note well, the so-called ‘internal traceability’. Moreover, it is in the interest of operators to voluntarily adopt systems that allow recording such data as well, where possible, to optimize any risk analysis and management activities.

Traceability of products of animal origin

Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 has strengthened the requirements of traceability laid down by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 as regards foods of animal origin processed and unprocessed.

‘Food business operators ensure that the following information concerning batches of foods of animal origin are made available to the food business operator to whom the food is supplied and to the competent authority, if requested:

a) a detailed description of the foods;

b) the volume or the quantity of the foods;

c) the name and address of the food business operator who dispatched the food;

d) the name and address of the dispatcher (owner) if different from the food business operator who dispatched the food;

e) the name and address of theoperator of the food business to whom the food has been dispatched;

f) the name and address of the recipient (owner) if different from the food business operator to whom the food has been dispatched;

g) an identification reference of the batch o of the lot, if necessary;

h) the date of dispatch’.

Such information must be:

• recorded (and provided, on request, to the competent authorities) ‘in addition to any information required by the provisions of Union legislation relating to the traceability of food of animal origin’ (see the following paragraph);
• ‘updated daily and made available as long as it can be reasonably assumed that the food has been consumed’ (EU reg. 931/2011, article 2).

Traceability, sector-specific rules

The vertical regulations that apply to individual production sectors prescribe traceability requirements beyond the general ones for certain categories of food products. Up to establishing in some sectors a system of ‘passport traceability’, where a variable core of information related to products, their origin and processing must accompany them throughout the entire supply chain. Some examples follow:

• bovine meat (EC regulations no. 1760, 1825/2000);
• swine, poultry, sheep and goat meat (EU reg. 1337/2013);
• fishery and aquaculture products (EC reg. no. 1224/09);
• eggs (EU regulations 2023/2464, 2465, 2466);
• Honey (Breakfast Directive EU 2024/1438).

Other examples concern the numerous products subject to mandatory indication on the label of origin and/or provenance of raw materials, whose information must be collected and recorded according to the different specifications prescribed from time to time. Mentioned are the cases of virgin and extra virgin olive oils (EU reg. 2022/2104), fresh fruit and vegetables and dried fruit (EU reg. 2023/2049), the tomato preserves in Italy (Ministerial Decree 11.8.2017).

Further traceability requirements are prescribed by theEUDR – European Union Deforestation Regulation 2023/1115 – for products derived from soy, palm, cocoa and coffee (as well as rubber and timber). The regulations (EC) no. 1829, 1830/00, in turn, have limited themselves to prescribing the retention for 5 years of documents related to transactions of products containing or derived from GMOs.

Traceability, new sanctions in Italy

The Italian legislator, with law 75/2026 (article 8), has tightened the sanctions provided for violations of the duties of traceability under article 18 of regulation (EC) no. 178/2002:

‘1. Unless the act constitutes a crime, food and feed business operators who do not comply with the obligations under article 18 of regulation (EC) no. 178/2002 are subject to a administrative sanction pecuniary from 6,000 euros to 48,000 euros or 3% of the total turnover annual revenue realized in the last fiscal year closed prior to the verification of the violation when this amount exceeds 48,000 euros. The maximum penalty cannot in any case exceed 150,000 euros.

2. For the determination of pecuniary administrative sanctions provided for by this decree, the competent authority takes into account the seriousness of the fact, the duration of the violation, the work carried out by the agent to eliminate or mitigate the consequences of the violation as well as the economic conditions of the same. For the violations of a documentary or formal nature that do not affect food safety or the substantial traceability of the product, the competent authority, before proceeding with the imposition of the administrative sanction, assigns the operator a period of fifteen days for the spontaneous regularization of the activity».

Reservations for the application of criminal law

By virtue of the criminal reservation expressed in article 8 of law 75/2026, the application of the administrative sanction indicated therein is excluded whenever the violation of traceability duties falls within the material facts of a crime. Below is a brief review of the crimes that could be configured, depending on the cases:

a) penal code – crimes against the public economy, industry, commerce and agri-food heritage (second book, title VIII). Articles:

• 515 (Fraud in trade);
• 517 (Sale of industrial products with misleading marks);
• 517-quater (Counterfeiting of geographical indications or designations of origin of agri-food products);
• 517-sexies (Food fraud);
• 517-septies (Trade of food with misleading labels);

b) penal code – common danger crimes by fraud (second book, Title VI – crimes against public safety, Chapter II). Such crimes against public health are also punishable by negligence (art. 452 penal code). Articles:

• 440 (Adulteration or counterfeiting of food substances);
• 442 (Trade of counterfeit or adulterated food substances);
• 444 (Trade of harmful food substances);

c) penal code – criminal associations (Title V – crimes against public order, Chapter I). Articles:

• 416 (Criminal association);
• 416-bis (Mafia-type criminal association);

d) legislative decree 24/2000 – offenses related to income and value added taxes:

• 2 (Fraudulent declaration through use of invoices or other documents for non-existent transactions);
• 3 (Fraudulent declaration by other artifices);

e) law 283/1962 – hygiene regulation of the production and sale of food substances and beverages, article 5.

Lights and shadows of the reform

The introduction of a particularly severe administrative sanction aims to exert a significant deterrent effect towards all operators in the supply chain, who will have to review and, if necessary, update their traceability procedures.

The trade associations in the various sectors and areas of food production and services, as well as territorial ones, will have a fundamental role ininformation and the training of members. Also being able to rely on the support of the author and the division FARE (Food and Agriculture Requirements).

The traceability of agri-food products and feed in Italy it will thus be guaranteed even more widely and better than in any other EU member country, perhaps even globally (pending the application of Food Traceability Final Rule in USA, postponed until July 20, 2028).

Article 8 of the Italian law no. 75/2026 nevertheless presents, according to the author, two critical issues that deserve to be corrected.

Unfair sanctions against small and medium-sized enterprises

The administrative monetary penalties provided in Italy for violations of traceability rules are characterized by a structural inequity against SMEs:

• the minimum statutory penalty of 6,000 euros generates an effective rate of up to 6% of turnover for micro-enterprises (double the nominal rate of 3%);
• on the other side, the maximum ceiling of 150,000 euros – which is reached already with a turnover of 5 million euros – reduces the real incidence on turnover of large operators (up to 0.03% in cases of turnover of 500 million);
• the same offense therefore entails a burden up to twenty times higher for a micro-enterprise compared to a large company, in clear contrast with the principle of proportionality established by law 689/1981, which in art. 11 explicitly requires considering the economic conditions of the offender when determining the penalty.

The sanctioning mechanism also appears susceptible to criticism from the perspective of constitutional legitimacy. The application of a fixed minimum and an absolute maximum ceiling produces aneffective incidence inversely proportional to the size of the enterprise. Tale irragionevolezza intrinseca contrasta con il principio di uguaglianza sostanziale stabilito nell’articolo 3 della Costituzione italiana — che vieta l’equiparazione arbitraria di situazioni economicamente diseguali — e rischia di tradursi, per le piccole e microimprese, in un ostacolo sproporzionato all’esercizio dell’iniziativa economica privata tutelata dal suo articolo 41.

Table 1: Impact of law 75/2026: the paradox of sanctions on traceability

Size of business	Annual turnover	Applied sanction (law 75/2026)	Actual impact on turnover (%)	Criticality profile (articles 3 and 41 Const.)
Microenterprise	€ 100,000	€ 6,000 (Fixed statutory minimum)	6.00 %	Suffocation effect: the minimum sanction ignores the real economic capacity, violating the principle of proportionality.
Small enterprise	€ 2,000,000	€ 60,000 (Calculated at 3% of turnover)	3.00%	Nominal rate: the tax respects the theoretical proportion of the regulation, while delivering a very hard blow to liquidity.
Medium enterprise	€ 5,000,000	€ 150,000 (Reaching the maximum ceiling)	3.00%	Limit threshold: break-even point beyond which the deterrent effect of the percentage sanction stops increasing.
Large enterprise	€ 50,000,000	€ 150,000 (Absolute maximum ceiling)	0.30%	Mitigated deterrence: the real impact is reduced by 10 times compared to a medium enterprise.
Giants (retail, industry)	€ 500,000,000	€ 150,000 (Absolute maximum ceiling)	0.03%	Structural inequity: business risk becomes negligible (up to 200 times lower than microenterprise), nullifying the deterrent effect.

Applicability and proportionality of the sanction

A second potential critical issue concerns the applicability of the sanction to violations of additional traceability requirements provided for by Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 for food of animal origin:

• Article 8 of Law 75/2016 explicitly refers only to the general traceability requirement established by Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 178/02;
• it is therefore doubtful, by virtue of the principle of strict legality, that the sanction can be extended to the additional requirements established by Regulation (EU) No 931/2011.

A critical issue is also apparent in thelack of proportionality between the exceptionally strict sanction established for the violation of the general traceability requirement and the much milder sanctions provided for violations of specific requirements established by sector regulations, which also often pursue food safety objectives.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Law 75/2026 projects Italy to theglobal forefront in the protection of the traceability of agri-food products, as well as in the prevention and combating of food fraud. Surpassing even the main foreign markets in timeliness (such as the USA, which postponed the Food Traceability Final Rule by 2028). For global buyers and importers, the Made in Italy agri-food confirms itself as synonymous with a safe, transparent supply chain strictly monitored by very severe sanctions.

However, the regime of draconian sanctions also risks penalizing the productive fabric of the Bel Paese which, with particular regard to the domestic market, is based on microenterprises and SMEs. Where, in the primary agricultural supply chain as well as in artisanal laboratories and public establishments, training and awareness by control authorities – including through the warning institution – should precede the imposition of sanctions whose real impact can jeopardize businesses.

The literal reference in law 75/2026 only to article 18 of regulation (EC) no. 178/02 also risks compromising the applicability of sanctions to the additional requirements provided for foods of animal origin.

To ensure that the Italian supply chain is not only the safest but also fair and competitive, a corrective intervention by the legislator will be essential. Meanwhile, the role of trade associations and entities like FARE (Food and Agriculture Requirements) will become crucial to guide businesses, especially smaller ones, toward full and serene compliance with the rules.

Dario Dongo

Credit cover  Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Bibliography

• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 931/2011 of 19 September 2011 on the traceability requirements set by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council for food of animal origin. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2011/931/oj
• Law 21 April 2026, no. 75, Sanctioning provisions for the protection of Italian food products. Official Gazette 14 May 2026 no. 110 https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2026/05/14/26G00089/SG
• Law 30 April 1962, no. 283. Amendment of articles 242, 243, 247, 250 and 262 of the consolidated text of health laws, approved by royal decree 27 July 1934, no. 1265: Hygienic regulations for the production and sale of foodstuffs and beverages. Normattiva (last update to the act published on 20/03/2024).
• Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Consolidated text: 01/01/2026. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2002/178/2026-01-01