REGULATION FOR THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF BAKED PRODUCTS IN ITALY

EXERCISE CASE 1 EXERCISECOLOMBIA GROUP06 OCTOBER 2011

TAIWAN

1. TITLE OF PROPOSAL

• REGULATION ON PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF BAKED ´PRODUCTS STANDARDS

2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT OF MEASURE

• I. THE OBJECTIVE: TO BRING ITALY IN LINE WITH OTHER EUROPEAN STYLE PROTECTIONS ON FOOD PRODUCTS

• II. THE BACKGROUND: LACK OF COMMONLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF OVEN BAKED PRODUCTS AND THEIR PRODUCTION METHODS/ LACK OF QUALITY CONTROL SUPERVISION/ INSUFFICIENT PROTECTION OF MARKET TRANSPARENCY/ LACK OF INFORMATIVE FRAMEWORK TO ENCOURAGE AWARENESS IN THEIR MARKET CHOICES/ CONSUMER PROTECTION

• III. RISK ASSESMENT: UNCERTANTY FOR RETAILERS AND THE MARKET, STANDARD PRODUCTION METHODS, UNFAIR COMPETION, LACK OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, WEAK MARKET CHOICES.

3. OPTIONS• OPTION 1: NOTHING• OPTION 2: SELF REGULATION CODE• OPTION 3: IF NOTHING THEN ITALY ASSUMES

THE EU REGULATION CODE AND IF SELF REGULATION DRIVES THE OPTION THEN THERE´S THE RISK THAT BIGGER COMPANIES WITH MORE INFLUENCE IN THE ASSOCIATION CAN IMPOSE STANDARDS THAT BENEFITS THEM AT THE COST OF MINOR PLAYERS.

4. BENEFITS• OPTION 1: THE REGULATION IS TO STABLISH A

CLEAR POLICY ABOUT BAKED PRODUCT PRICES• OPTION 2: THE REGULATION WILL PROVIDE

SECURITY TO EVERY CONSUMER OF THE PRODUCTS OF THEIR QUALITY

• OPTION 3: STABLISHMENT OF A CLEAR FRAMEWORK WHERE MARKETS AND CONSUMERS WILL HAVE EQUALL BENEFITS (MARKETS WILL INCREASE THE SALES BECAUSE OF MORE COMPETITIVE PRICES).

4. BENEFITSSales

CONSUMERSGOVERNMENTINDUSTRIES

5. COSTS• OPTION 1: THE MARKET CONTINOUS TO BE

UNREGULATED AT THE RISK OF LOSS OF COMPETITIVENESS

• OPTION 2: SELF REGULATION CODE• OPTION 3: IF NOTHING THEN ITALY ASSUMES THE

EU REGULATION CODE AND IF SELF REGULATION DRIVES THE OPTION THEN THERE´S THE RISK THAT BIGGER COMPANIES WITH MORE INFLUENCE IN THE ASSOCIATION CAN IMPOSE STANDARDS THAT BENEFITS THEM AT THE COST OF MINOR PLAYERS.

6. CONSULTATION WITH SMALL BUSINESS

THEY HAVE TO BE IMPORTANT STAKEHOLDERS IN THE MEETINGS BECAUSE THE SMALL BUSINESSES WILL HAVE MORE COMPLAINTS TO ADAPT TO NEW STANDARDS

7. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS• IF THE INDUSTRY DOESN´T FOLLOW THE

REGULATION THEY WILL NOT GET THE QUALITY SEAL

8. MONITORING AND REVIEW• MEASURING THE EXPLOITATION FROM

ITALY TO THE EU COUNTRIES• FOLLOW UP THE PRODUCTION ON THE

MARKET BY THE DEMANDS OF COMMODITIES

9. CONSULTATIONTHE GOVERNMENT WILL GATHER IN A

DISCUSSION FORUM A PANEL ESTRUCTURE OF DIFFERENET TABLES WHOM WILL DISCUSS THE DIFFERENT ITEMS RAISED.

10. SUMARY AND RECOMENDATIONS• OPTION 1: NOTHING• OPTION 2: SELF REGULATION CODE• OPTION 3: IF NOTHING THEN ITALY ASSUMES

THE EU REGULATION CODE AND IF SELF REGULATION DRIVES THE OPTION THEN THERE´S THE RISK THAT BIGGER COMPANIES WITH MORE INFLUENCE IN THE ASSOCIATION CAN IMPOSE STANDARDS THAT BENEFITS THEM AT THE COST OF MINOR PLAYERS.

11. DECLARATIONI HAVE READ THE REGULATORY IMPACT

ASSESMENT AND I AM SATISFIED THAT THE BENEFITS JUSTIFY THE COSTS

SIGNEDDATE

CO NTACTPOINT