We would like to report about the situation in UK.
The legalization took place for whole EU September 13th, 2019 when UK was part of the EU and is, thus, valid for UK as well, as long as there is no official statement by the government about Magic Truffles. In case that UK will keep free food trade agreements with EU, the legal situation will persist.
However, the UK border force some months ago confiscated three parcels ordered from UK customers, calling our product something else than it is: “Psilocin”, “Psilocybin” or “Magic Mushrooms”.
While in the UK since the 2005 drug act “fungi of any kind” that contain Psilcin (or an ester, like Psilcybin) are Class A substances (growing wild on UK soil, so UK is a illegal drug producer?), a ridiculous effort to ban healthy Magic Mushrooms, “sclerotia” are persistent, vegetative, resting spores of fungi (https://www.britannica.com/science/sclerotium)
This, not fungi. As in all other countries, Thortruffles, Magic Truffles are not listed in any schedule. As they are not addictive and do not pose any danger to health, it is not justified in any way to act against people who like to improve their well-being and healthy by eating Thortruffles.
We tried to contact the border force and are adding information leaflets to our shipments to UK to make the officials aware that they commit an illegal act by calling our product something that it is not to then have a reason to confiscate it and create damage to us and our customers.
So we contacted the EU to help us with this problem, than, as well, occurred with Poland once.
The first reply we received, says:
In this regard, the Commission notes that such products are not harmonised under EU law through secondary EU legislation and
thus should be assessed on the basis of the Treaty Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), particularly Articles 34 and 36, which enshrines the free movement of goods principle. Article 34 TFEU states that quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect are prohibited between Member States. According to
established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction are considered “all trading rules enacted by Member States, which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-EU trade”. (2) An exception to the principle may only be justified on the grounds of Article 36 TFEU or the mandatory requirements developed by the case-law of the Court, provided that the measure is proportionate.
From the information provided, however, the Commission services have not been able to identify any legislation in the United Kingdom, Poland or other Member States, which could explain why the relevant authorities decided to take such action described in the complaint.
As such, the situation described above does not result into a clear breach of EU law.
However, it could appear to be a matter of incorrect application and interpretation of EU law by the United Kingdom or Polish authorities. Therefore, the complaint would be best addressed by SOLVIT, as the national SOLVIT centres may contact each other in order to better understand the prevailing situation and the legal basis it may have.
So, let’s recap: there is no legislation of ANY member state that would hinder our product to be freely traded in EU.
So, we are now moving the case to SOLVIT to proceed and remind that there is no legislation in any member state of the EU that would hinder our product to be freely traded.