It follows that using the terms listed in Article 9 paragraph 4 OIF to label vegan products contravenes Article 18 paragraph 1 of the Foodstuffs Act (FSA). The lower instance was therefore right to object to the products of the parties to the proceedings.
ArchiveThis article is in the archive and no longer part of the current journal.
Report·Wirtschaft, Finanzplatz, Wettbewerb·Document finding
Judgment 2C_380/2025 of 29 July 2026
Under Article 9 paragraph 4 of the Ordinance of the FDHA on Information on Foodstuffs (OIF), various designations may be used instead of a specific designation under Article 9 paragraph 1 OIF, including “Schinken” (“ham”), “Salami” (“salami”) and “Mortadella” (“mortadella”). These are customary designations which, owing to their historical use, are so closely associated with meat products that they can replace a specific designation (see the FSVO’s statement of 30 October 2025, p. 2). In other words, the ordinance-maker assumes that the specific designations under Article 9 paragraph 1 OIF and the designations referred to in Article 9 paragraph 4 OIF have equivalent distinguishing power. Given their interchangeability for labelling purposes, there are no objective reasons to treat the two forms of labelling differently. Accordingly, in the light of the Federal Supreme Court’s recent case law on Article 9 paragraph 1 OIF (consideration 6.4 above), Article 9 paragraph 4 OIF must be interpreted as meaning that the designations it contains are reserved for products containing meat. Their use for vegan products is unlawful. It follows that using the terms listed in Article 9 paragraph 4 OIF to label vegan products contravenes Article 18 paragraph 1 of the Foodstuffs Act (FSA). The lower instance was therefore right to object to the products of the parties to the proceedings.