The reverse discrimination of goods often occurs in regulations on food and drinks. In particular, a lot of Member States have established some form of regulation in order to protect the reputation of specific regional products. These products must meet certain standards before they are allowed to use a specific denomination, such as containing certain ingredients or being made through a specific production process. This type of regulation not only aims to protect the reputation of the products, but it also aims to guarantee these products ‘ quality and to avoid consumers being misled.

In a lot of cases the strict conditions imposed upon products are incompatible with the Treaty provisions on free movement because they create a restriction to free movement within the EU. Accordingly, these rules cannot be applied to cross-border situations, but they may remain applicable to purely internal situations. National producers selling these goods in their home Member State might challenge this situation of reverse discrimination, by claiming, for instance, that it leads to unfair competition and an unjustified difference in treatment.

The recent changes in the Belgian legislation on mayonnaise illustrate the awareness of the competing interests which are at stake in a situation of reverse discrimination of goods. That is to say, Belgian mayonnaise had to contain at least 80 per cent fat and 7.5 per cent egg yolk. By contrast, other EU Member States had aligned their legislation with the code of good practice adopted in 1991 by the Fédération des Industries Condimentaires au niveau européen which provides 70 per cent fat and 5 per cent egg yolk for mayonnaise. Belgian producers of mayonnaise complained about the stricter rules for producing mayonnaise in Belgium.

In 2005, the Belgian competent advisory body argued in favour of the stricter Belgian legislation and pointed out that lowering the requirements on fat and egg yolk implies that additives such as water, milk and sugar as well as preservatives may be added, which leads to a mayonnaise of inferior quality. However, in the summer of 2015, the issue was raised again and the Minister for Consumer Affairs reconsidered the legislation.