Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A. AG] , represented by Evelyne Toh-Stadelmann and Dr. Gregor Bachmann, attorneys
  • Respondents: Canton of Solothurn Food Control and Department of the Interior of the Canton of Solothurn

Facts:

  • On January 19, 2021, the Canton of Solothurn Food Control conducted an inspection at [A. AG] , focusing particularly on the production of mechanically separated meat.
  • By order of February 15, 2021, [A. AG] was required to no longer label the product "P-Fleisch v. Hals und vorderer Rückkarkasse SG TK" / "Poulet-Fleisch v. Hals u. vorderer Rückenstück SG TK" as such, but to label it as mechanically separated meat.
  • [A. AG] filed an objection and an appeal against this order, which were dismissed.
  • By appeal in public law matters of February 25, 2022, [A. AG] brought the case before the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The appellant complains of an obviously incorrect finding of fact by the lower court. She argues that the lower court had uncritically adopted the factual submissions of the cantonal authorities and had not taken into account the expert reports submitted. However, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the lower court did not make an obviously incorrect finding of fact and that the rejection of the application for an expert opinion was not objectionable.

The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the contested product "P-Fleisch v. Hals und vorderer Rückkarkasse SG TK" / "Poulet-Fleisch v. Hals u. vorderer Rückenstück SG TK" constitutes mechanically separated meat within the meaning of Art. 4 para. 4 AFO. It finds that the three conditions for classification as mechanically separated meat are met: the meat is…