Extra-virgin olive oil and “mechanical-only” processes: the Italian Court of Cassation on the borderline between label claims and commercial fraud
by Giulia Pongolini
With judgment no. 488 of 8 January 2026, the Third Criminal Section of the Italian Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal lodged by an olive-mill operator convicted of commercial fraud (Article 515 of the Italian Criminal Code) in connection with the sale, as extra-virgin olive oil, of a product deemed different in quality from that declared. The difference was traced to the addition of Pectinex, an enzymatic preparation which, according to the reconstruction up held on appeal, had been used during production to increase yield and reduce turbidity.
From a procedural standpoint, the case is noteworthy for its non-linear trajectory. At first instance, the Court of Bari (judgmentof 2 December 2021) acquitted the defendant. On appeal, however, the Bari Court of Appeal (judgment of 14 June 2024) fully reversed that decision, sentencing him to nine months’ imprisonment, ordering publication of the judgment, and granting a suspended sentence. The case then reached the Court of Cassation, which rejected the defence arguments, holding that the reasoning of the appellate judgment was not affected by manifest illogicality, since there were no logical breaks between premises and conclusions. The Court also excluded inconsistencies, which can be found only where the arguments concerning the same fact are irreconcilable, where there is a mismatch between reasoning and operative part, or where residual uncertainty prevents identification of which of the alternative reconstructions the judge ultimately adopted.
As emerges from the judgment, the core of the accusation was not framed in terms of sanitary risk, nor as adulteration in a strictly toxicological sense. Rather, it was treated as a problem of correspondence between what is promised to consumers and what is actually placed on the market. The oil was marketed with labelling that emphasized production «directly from olives» and «solely by mechanical procedures». The use of an enzymatic preparation in the process was considered capable of generating a qualitative discrepancy with respect to that representation, with the consequence that the good offered and sold was «different, in quality, from that declared» for the purposes of Article 515.
This is consistent with the legal interest protected by the offence, which most scholarship reconstructs as the community’s interest in honest, fair, and correct behaviour in commercial practice. A widespread climate of distrust would ultimately obstruct transactions, undermining the regularity of exchanges and altering the equilibrium of the national economic system. A similar approach is reflected in prevailing case law, which confines the protected interest to the State’s public function of ensuring honest commerce, while excluding both the lawfulness of trading in the product as such and the protection of the purchaser’s patrimonial interests. The buyer may, infact, receive a good different from that agreed, even one of higher value than the price paid. From this perspective follows, logically, the exclusion of any exculpatory effect of the purchaser’s potential consent to receive a different good (see, on this point, Cass. crim., Third Section, 30 September 2025, no.32260).
The decision is particularly relevant for the olive-oil supply chain because it shows that communicative choices and production choices cannot be treated as separate spheres. Regulation (EU) No1308/2013, Annex VII, Part VIII, point 1, defines virgin olive oils as oils obtained from the fruit of the olive tree solely by mechanical processes or other physical means, under conditions that do not lead to alterations in the oil, and without treatments other than those permitted. Against this regulatory background, the use on labels of formulas that evoke the purity of the method heightens the centrality of consistency between production process and what is declared. That consistency is also salient at the level of consumer perception, since the “extra-virgin” category is commonly associated with the idea of a product obtained without interventions beyond those allowed by the legal definition and accepted practice. This, in turn, increases sensitivity to any mismatch between the product sold and the product declared or agreed.
A further significant aspect concerns the evidentiary approach adopted by the appellate court and endorsed by the Court of Cassation, namely reliance on circumstantial evidence. Given the impossibility, including through analysis, of detecting in the produced oil the contested substance, the Court of Appeal grounded its finding on a chain of factors considered to satisfy the three requirements of seriousness, precision, and consistency set out in Article 192(2) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.
More specifically, weight was attached to the yield differential between olives milled for the defendant’s own production and olives milled on behalf of third parties, a disparity deemed difficult to explain solely by agronomic variables or by hypothetical differences linked to the period of milling, which in any event could not justify the disproportionality ascertained by the judicial police. The court also relied on documentation concerning the purchase of the preparation, in particular records from the importing company, viewed as indicative of the product’s intended use in the production process. Additional elements included the lack of robust support for the defense alternative according to which the substance was used exclusively to clean equipment, as well as certain inconsistencies in a worker’s statements regarding cleaning procedures. Finally, it was considered decisive that the HACCP manual, in the section devoted to cleaning, contained no reference to the product at issue, despite listing other detergents andd isinfectants.
From this standpoint, the judgment provides a concrete indication of how proof may be constructed in cases of this kind. Under there construction accepted, it is not necessary to find the substance in the finished product, since the court may rely on a coherent circumstantial framework in which not only technical-production data (such as yield) but also documentary and organisational elements (purchases, internal traceability, procedures, and consistency of the HACCP system) acquire probative weight.
Strictly in terms of judicial review, the dismissal of the appeal is readily understood in light of the limits of cassation proceedings. The Court reiterated that it is not empowered to substitute its own assessment for that of the trial judge, and that review of reasoning cannot become a re-evaluation of evidence. On that basis, the defence submissions were characterised as an attempt to propose an alternative reading of the evidentiary material and to obtain a different reconstruction of the facts, without identifying manifest logical flaws or decisive contradictions in the reasoning of the appellate court, which had moreover engaged in a detailed manner with the grounds for the first-instance acquittal.
As to the second ground of appeal, the Court confirmed the appellate approach in denying generic mitigating circumstances and the benefit of non-mention of the conviction in the criminal record, treating these as discretionary determinations supported by non-apparent reasoning and anchored to the criteria of Article 133 of the Italian Criminal Code, with reference to factors such as the intensity of intent, profit motive, degree o fharm, and overall conduct.
On the merits, the judgment should not be read aslaying down a general rule that turns any informational non-compliance into a criminal offence, nor as an undifferentiated statement that the use of any processing aid automatically entails criminal liability. What emerges, rather,is the centrality of the notion of discrepancy between the good delivered and the good declared or agreed, and the fact that such discrepancy, in a context like the present one, may also originate in the production process when the process itself is an integral component of the quality promised to the market.
In terms of risk management, the decision signals that the olive-oil sector, precisely because it rests on category standards and consumer expectations strongly anchored to traditional production formulas ,calls for particular caution in striking a balance between marketing needs and legal constraints. The more communication relies on absolute claims, the more essential it becomes to be able to demonstrate, coherently and through traceable records, that the production choices match what is declared.
The emphasis placed on internal documentation is especially instructive. The court’s reconstruction values not only production data but also the congruence between what the business asserts (in this case, use of a product solely for sanitizing machinery) and what emerges from procedures, logs, manuals, and accounting records. The absence of coherent traces, or the lack of references in key documents such as the HACCP manual, was read as weakening the plausibility of the defence alternative and, together with the other indicia, as reinforcing the thesis of use within the production process.
As for evidence, the practical lesson for operators concerns the ability to demonstrate, ex post and in a verifiable way,the intended use of substances employed in production. As the case shows, proof does not rest exclusively on analysis of the finished product, but may also be built through reconstruction of technical choices, internal flows, and thec oherence of the documentary system.
In conclusion, the decision brings into focus a crucial point. Where the declared quality incorporates an idea of method and process, the gap between declared and actual may become criminally relevant if, in the concrete case, a discrepancy between the good delivered and the good promised is deemed proven. That proof may be established through circumstantiale vidence grounded in yield data, traceability, and documentary consistency.