Facts
In this case, the Federal Criminal Court was seized with an appeal against a judgment acquitting a farmer accused of violating the prohibition on providing hemp as feed to his livestock. The main factual elements are as follows: - The farmer produced hemp on his farm with the purpose of providing it as feed to his own animals. - He was prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Thurgau for violating Art. 48 para. 1 let. b of the Federal Act on Foodstuffs and Utility Articles (FoodA) and Art. 173 para. 1 let. i second part of the Agriculture Act (AgricA). - The cantonal court acquitted the farmer, finding that the prohibition on providing hemp as feed did not apply when the hemp was produced on the farm for the farmer's own needs.Considerations
The Federal Criminal Court overturned this judgment. It considers that the prohibition on providing hemp as livestock feed also applies when the farmer uses hemp that he has produced himself on his farm. This prohibition has a sufficient legal basis in Art. 23b para. 3 let. a of the Ordinance on Animal Feeds, which allows the competent federal department to issue provisions…