The study aims to determine what instruments supporting local food systems (LFS) are implemented in US law. To achieve this goal, the most important regulations supporting LFS, issued at federal, state, and local levels, drawn from various fields, were analysed, including food safety law, zoning law, tax law, and federal programs. The provisions are discussed in relation to the key elements of LFS: direct marketing, farmer's markets, community-supported agriculture, urban agriculture, and agritourism. The study shows that US law lacks a systematic approach to legal support for LFS. However, important legislative tools supporting LFS can be identified. These include exemptions from certain food safety requirements for direct farm marketing, a food sales tax exemption established by certain states, relevant local zoning laws encouraging urban agriculture and farmers' markets, as well as local laws on public procurement prioritizing local food. The most visible support, designed specifically for LFS, are federal programs offering financial grants.
The study aims to determine what instruments supporting local food systems (LFS) are implemented in US law. To achieve this goal, the most important regulations supporting LFS, issued at federal, state, and local levels, drawn from various fields, were analysed, including food safety law, zoning law, tax law, and federal programs. The provisions are discussed in relation to the key elements of LFS: direct marketing, farmer's markets, community-supported agriculture, urban agriculture, and agritourism. The study shows that US law lacks a systematic approach to legal support for LFS. However, important legislative tools supporting LFS can be identified. These include exemptions from certain food safety requirements for direct farm marketing, a food sales tax exemption established by certain states, relevant local zoning laws encouraging urban agriculture and farmers' markets, as well as local laws on public procurement prioritizing local food. The most visible support, designed specifically for LFS, are federal programs offering financial grants.
The purpose of the discussion presented in the article was to determine the legal status of direct sale of agricultural and food products and its place in the agricultural activity in the legislation of selected EU Member States: Poland, Italy, and France. The considerations show that each legislator has chosen a different way of determining the legal status of this activity, though with a view to a similar ratio legis, which is to support it by enabling and facilitating farmers involvement. In Polish law, "agricultural retail sale" is outside the narrow definition of agricultural activity. It is not, however, subject to the provisions of business law provided it meets the conditions specified in law. Italian law defines the status of direct sales explicitly as agricultural, situating them among connected agricultural activities carried out by the agricultural entrepreneur. The detailed criteria for its connection with the agricultural activity by nature constitute a separate special regulation. In French law, thanks to the broad definition of agricultural activity, the place of direct sale as an agricultural activity par relation which is an extension of the act of production, is defined by case-law. ; L'articolo si propone di stabilire lo status giuridico della vendita diretta dei prodotti agricoli e alimentari nella legislazione di alcuni Stati membri scelti, cioè in Polonia, Italia e Francia; compresa la collocazione della stessa nel settore dell'attività agricola. Le considerazioni svolte mettono in rilievo il fatto che ciascun legislatore ha scelto un modo diverso di definire lo status giuridico dell'attività in oggetto, anche se mosso da una ratio legis simile, cioè dal voler sostenerla dando agli agricoltori la possibilità di svolgerla e facilitandone lo svolgimento. Nel diritto polacco, la vendita diretta, definita come un "commercio agricolo al dettaglio", non rientra nella definizione ristretta di attività agricola. Essa non è soggetta nemmeno al diritto economico, sempre se soddisfa le condizioni stabilite dalla legge. Il diritto italiano, invece, definisce lo status di vendita diretta come agricola in maniera esplicita, collocandola tra le attività agricole connesse, svolte da un imprenditore agricolo, e stabilendo in una regolazione specifica separata i criteri per la connessione con l'attività agricola per sua natura. Nel diritto francese, grazie ad una definizione ampia di attività agricola, il luogo della vendita diretta, in quanto attività agricola par relation, intesa come continuazione dell'atto di produzione, è specificato dalla giurisprudenza. ; The purpose of the discussion presented in the article was to determine the legal status of direct sale of agricultural and food products and its place in the agricultural activity in the legislation of selected EU Member States: Poland, Italy, and France. The considerations show that each legislator has chosen a different way of determining the legal status of this activity, though with a view to a similar ratio legis, which is to support it by enabling and facilitating farmers involvement. In Polish law, "agricultural retail sale" is outside the narrow definition of agricultural activity. It is not, however, subject to the provisions of business law provided it meets the conditions specified in law. Italian law defines the status of direct sales explicitly as agricultural, situating them among connected agricultural activities carried out by the agricultural entrepreneur. The detailed criteria for its connection with the agricultural activity by nature constitute a separate special regulation. In French law, thanks to the broad definition of agricultural activity, the place of direct sale as an agricultural activity par relation which is an extension of the act of production, is defined by case-law.
The legal status of farmers involved in food marketing is not determined by the EU legislator, however, EU policy encourages farmers' participation in short food supply chains. The article aims to determine whether a farmer selling his products, both processed and unprocessed, is subject to a favourable legal regime intended for the agricultural sector, or whether this activity qualifies him as a commercial entrepreneur. The legislation of three EU Member States and the law of the USA were subject to a comparative legal analysis, based on the dogmatic method. The study found that under the EU Member States' law, farmers involved in short food supply chains are granted a privileged agricultural status, which certainly strengthens their market position in competition with food businesses and big retailers and is an incentive to undertake and conduct the activity of agri-food marketing. In turn, under American law, agricultural activity and direct marketing are economic activities that cause farmers to operate within a business as an entrepreneur. The main tool to support the participation of US farmers in short food supply chains is financial programmes offering incentives to direct marketing. It was concluded that the systemic legal solutions, as in the presented legislation of the EU countries, in contrast to aid programmes, provides farmers with favourable conditions in the long term, without additional bureaucracy and the need to fill out documents and applications, thus giving them a sense of confidence and stability in engaging in food direct marketing.
The legal status of farmers involved in food marketing is not determined by the EU legislator, however, EU policy encourages farmers' participation in short food supply chains. The article aims to determine whether a farmer selling his products, both processed and unprocessed is subject to a favourable legal regime intended for the agricultural sector, or whether this activity qualifies him as a commercial entrepreneur. The legislation of three EU Member States and the law of the USA were subject to a comparative legal analysis, based on the dogmatic method. The study found that under the EU Member States' law, farmers involved in short food supply chains are granted a privileged agricultural status, which certainly strengthens their market position in competition with food businesses and big retailers and is an incentive to undertake and conduct the activity of agri-food marketing. In turn, under American law, agricultural activity and direct marketing are economic activities that cause farmers to operate within a business as an entrepreneur. The main tool to support the participation of US farmers in short food supply chains is financial programmes offering incentives to direct marketing. It was concluded that the systemic legal solutions, as in the presented legislation of the EU countries, in contrast to aid programmes, provides farmers with favourable conditions in the long term, without additional bureaucracy and the need to fill out documents and applications, thus giving them a sense of confidence and stability in engaging in food direct marketing. ; The legal status of farmers involved in food marketing is not determined by the EU legislator, however, EU policy encourages farmers' participation in short food supply chains. The article aims to determine whether a farmer selling his products, both processed and unprocessed is subject to a favourable legal regime intended for the agricultural sector, or whether this activity qualifies him as a commercial entrepreneur. The legislation of three EU Member States and the law of the USA were subject to a comparative legal analysis, based on the dogmatic method. The study found that under the EU Member States' law, farmers involved in short food supply chains are granted a privileged agricultural status, which certainly strengthens their market position in competition with food businesses and big retailers and is an incentive to undertake and conduct the activity of agri-food marketing. In turn, under American law, agricultural activity and direct marketing are economic activities that cause farmers to operate within a business as an entrepreneur. The main tool to support the participation of US farmers in short food supply chains is financial programmes offering incentives to direct marketing. It was concluded that the systemic legal solutions, as in the presented legislation of the EU countries, in contrast to aid programmes, provides farmers with favourable conditions in the long term, without additional bureaucracy and the need to fill out documents and applications, thus giving them a sense of confidence and stability in engaging in food direct marketing.
The study aims to identify what food information is required for the sale of food by farmers in short food supply chains (SFSCs) in EU law in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 and legislation of selected Member States (Poland, Italy and France), which are allowed to adopt national measures in some issues. A comparison with US law serves as a benchmark for drawing conclusions, in particular, whether the requirements are appropriate and proportionate for SFSCs. The Regulation takes into account these alternative sales channels, as Art. 44 only requires information on allergens when offering unpackaged food for sale to final consumers or mass caterers, or when foodstuffs are packaged in the sales room at the consumer's request or packaged for direct sale. However, Member States have adopted national measures imposing an obligation to provide, in writing, more information on food in the direct sale, such as the ingredients list, but not the nutrition declaration. The US legislature is more restrictive, as it requires not only ingredient lists but also nutritional information for nearly all packaged and unpackaged food products, except for agricultural raw materials. The multitude of obligations imposed at various legislative levels is undoubtedly a challenge for farmers involved in SFSC, who are not prepared on a par with professional food companies to implement them. ; L'articolo si pone come obiettivo quello di identificare le informazioni alimentari obbligatorie che devono essere fornite nella vendita di alimenti nelle filiere alimentari corte (FAC) da parte degli agricoltori in conformità al regolamento (UE) 1169/2011 e in conformità alle normative di alcuni Stati membri (Polonia, Italia e Francia), ai quali è lasciata una certa discrezionalità rispetto ad alcune questioni. Il confronto con la legge statunitense serve come punto di riferimento per svolgere considerazioni, in particolare, in merito all'appropriatezza ed adeguatezza dei requisiti imposti per le FAC. Il Regolamento tiene conto di questi canali di vendita alternativi, in quanto art. 44 stabilisce come obbligatorie soltanto le informazioni sugli allergeni quando si offrono alimenti sfusi per la vendita ai consumatori finali o alla ristorazione collettiva, o quando i prodotti alimentari sono imballati nel locale di vendita su richiesta del consumatore o preimballati per la vendita diretta. Tuttavia, gli Stati membri hanno adottato misure nazionali che impongono l'obbligo di fornire, per iscritto, maggiori informazioni sugli alimenti nella vendita diretta, come l'elenco degli ingredienti, ma non la dichiarazione nutrizionale. Il legislatore statunitense è più restrittivo, poiché richiede non solo l'elenco degli ingredienti ma anche le informazioni nutrizionali per quasi tutti i prodotti alimentari confezionati e non confezionati, ad eccezione delle materie prime agricole. I molti obblighi informativi imposti a vari livelli legislativi rappresentano una sfida per gli agricoltori coinvolti nelle FAC, che non sono preparati ad attuarli quanto le industrie alimentari. ; Artykuł ma na celu określenie, jakie informacje na temat żywności są wymagane w przypadku sprzedaży żywności przez rolników w krótkich łańcuchach dostaw żywności (KŁDŻ) w prawie UE na podstawie rozporządzenia (UE) 1169/2011 oraz ustawodawstw wybranych państw członkowskich (Polski, Włoch i Francji), które w niektórych kwestiach mają możliwość przyjęcia krajowych przepisów. Porównanie z prawem amerykańskim służy jako punkt odniesienia do sformułowania wniosków, w szczególności, czy wymogi są odpowiednie i proporcjonalne w przypadku KŁDŻ. Rozporządzenie uwzględnia alternatywne kanały sprzedaży, bowiem w art. 44 wymaga jedynie informacji na temat alergenów w przypadku oferowania nieopakowanej żywności do sprzedaży konsumentom finalnym lub zakładom żywienia zbiorowego lub w przypadku pakowania środków spożywczych w pomieszczeniu sprzedaży na życzenie konsumenta lub ich pakowania do bezpośredniej sprzedaży. Jednak państwa członkowskie przyjęły krajowe środki zobowiązujące do podania na piśmie dodatkowych informacji o żywności w sprzedaży bezpośredniej, takich jak wykaz składników, ale bez oznaczania wartości odżywczej. Bardziej restrykcyjny jest ustawodawca amerykański, który wymaga listy składników i informacji o wartościach odżywczych dla niemal wszystkich pakowanych i nieopakowanych produktów spożywczych, z wyjątkiem surowców rolnych. Mnogość obowiązków nałożonych na różnych poziomach legislacyjnych jest niewątpliwie wyzwaniem dla rolników zaangażowanych w KŁDŻ, którzy nie są przygotowani do ich realizacji na równi z profesjonalnymi przedsiębiorstwami spożywczymi.
