Dismissal of the appeal against the prohibition of distributing a brochure for a food supplement

Facts

Parties: Appellant: [A. AG] , represented by attorney Dr. Vera Delnon. Respondents: Cantonal Laboratory of the Canton of Thurgau and Department of Finance and Social Affairs of the Canton of Thurgau.

Facts: [A. AG] produces and distributes the food supplement "[B.] " with CBD, melissa, and niacin. The Cantonal Laboratory objected to a brochure and ordered its distribution ban due to violations of food law provisions, particularly the prohibition of deception. The appellant unsuccessfully filed an objection, appeal, and complaint with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau. The appellant requests the annulment of the contested decision or the referral back to the lower court.

Considerations

The appeal was filed in time and in proper form and concerns a matter of public law in the field of food law. The appellant is entitled to lodge the remedy. The Federal Supreme Court examines the submissions made and applies the law ex officio.

The subject of the proceedings is whether the lower court has lawfully confirmed the prohibition that the appellant may not distribute the brochure for its product "[B.] " to wholesalers. The product "[B.] " is not a medicinal product but a food supplement subject to the Food Act (FoodA). The dispute is whether the brochure is covered by the food law provisions and whether its content violates the food law prohibition of deception.

The Food Act aims, inter alia, to protect consumers from deception and to provide the necessary information for the acquisition of foodstuffs. The protection against deception is specified in Art. 18 FoodA and Art. 12 FUAO. The brochure contains health-related statements about the active ingredient CBD, which are contrary to the food law prohibition of…