1. REGULATION FOR THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF BAKED PRODUCTS IN ITALY EXERCISE CASE 1 EXERCISE COLOMBIA GROUP 06 OCTOBER 2011 TAIWAN

2. 1. TITLE OF PROPOSAL REGULATION ON PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF BAKED ´PRODUCTS STANDARDS

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 4. BENEFITS

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 7. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS IF THE INDUSTRY DOESN´T FOLLOW THE REGULATION THEY WILL NOT GET THE QUALITY SEAL

10. 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

11. 9. CONSULTATION THE GOVERNMENT WILL GATHER IN A DISCUSSION FORUM A PANEL ESTRUCTURE OF DIFFERENET TABLES WHOM WILL DISCUSS THE DIFFERENT ITEMS RAISED.

12. 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.

13. 11. DECLARATION I HAVE READ THE REGULATORY IMPACT ASSESMENT AND I AM SATISFIED THAT THE BENEFITS JUSTIFY THE COSTS SIGNED DATE CO NTACTPOINT