Summary
1. Introduction. 2. Possibilities and Challenges. 3. The Legal Dimensions of Vertical Farming. 4. Vertical Agriculture and EU Policies. 5. Brief Comparative Notes. 6. Vertical Farming in the Italian Legal System. 7. The ‘Avant-Garde’ of Vertical Farming Regulation: Regional Legislation. 8. Conclusions.
1 Introduction
In the current so-called Anthropocene era, the connection between food and sustainability has become increasingly vital. The food industry plays a significant role in climate change, accounting for approximately a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions as well as extensive land and water use.1 This reality is intensified by global population growth, estimated to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, along with urban expansion and increasing urbanisation.2
Further compounding this are adverse impacts from food production such as land consumption, which also contribute to climate change.3
Indeed, as shown by Figure 7.1 below, agriculture and livestock farming occupy nearly half of Earth’s available land, accelerating climate change. This happens in two main ways: by altering ecosystems, such as through deforestation, and by reducing the soil’s ability to absorb greenhouse gases. Agriculture and livestock farming also consume around 70% of the world’s available fresh water.4
Global population growth is expected to lead to increasing demand for food and a consequent need to increase food production. Currently, this growth can only be met by using more land for farming and livestock, which runs the risk of further exacerbating this cycle.5 Population growth, however, is not an entirely homogeneous phenomenon as it goes hand in hand with increasing urbanisation, affecting metropolitan and industrial areas to a greater extent. Proceeding at the current rate, it is estimated that by 2050 almost 90% of the world’s population will reside in urban areas.6 This raises further concerns, as food demand and supply chains will increasingly focus on larger and more densely populated cities, where ensuring food security will become more complex.
In response to the aforementioned challenges, the ecological transition in the food sector has led to the development of technical and organisational solutions. These include, inter alia, ensuring sufficient food for a growing population while reducing environmental impact, minimising food systems’ contribution to climate change, and protecting biodiversity. It is no surprise, therefore, that many recent technological innovations share these goals. One can cite the rise of Novel Foods7 designed to reduce the environmental and climate footprint of food production, such as alternative protein sources and cultured meat.8
It is within this sphere, of shifts affecting the food sector and food law,9 that we can also place so-called vertical farming, or vertical agriculture (hereafter VF),10 an example of a ‘vehicle for institutional innovation’.11 VF encompasses a ‘kaleidoscope’ of innovative (and rather heterogeneous) cultivation methods, including growing a variety of crops, while sharing the common characteristic of being cultivated in multiple stacked layers within controlled environments, often integrating other techniques such as hydroponics, aeroponics, or aquaponics to reduce the use of water and other resources.12 Additionally, VF can be applied in different contexts such as greenhouses, warehouses, buildings, and even skyscrapers or containers, presenting possible opportunities for advancing food sustainability. In fact, VF is also an emerging market with substantial growth potential, marked by increasing competition among major players in Europe, the US, and Asia.13
Like all innovations in the agrifood sector, VF, particularly in its early stages of adoption, requires a well-defined regulatory framework and presents significant legal, regulatory, and social challenges. Establishing clear regulations for VF is crucial to develop its full potential to contribute to food sustainability and address the needs of stakeholders and businesses by filling numerous gaps and absences found in existing regulatory frameworks.
However, the ability of VF to effectively address these challenges of food law remains debated. Indeed, the sector is currently characterised by several economic and productive challenges, primarily associated with the high energy costs and substantial initial investments necessary to establish a vertical farm.
Against this backdrop, this chapter examines the main legal challenges pertaining to VF, following a brief analysis of its advantages and limitations. This chapter focuses on the regulatory approach adopted by the EU, with brief references to the distinct agricultural policy choices implemented in other geographical areas that are relevant to the VF sector. Finally, the chapter provides a more in-depth analysis of the Italian legal framework, highlighting open legal questions and recent developments within Italian regional legislation.
2 Possibilities and Challenges
For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘vertical farming’ (VF) is used to describe a diverse set of cultivation techniques organised at multiple levels in a controlled environment, applicable in multiple contexts, such as greenhouses, warehouses, roofs, public and private buildings, and even skyscrapers.14 VF uses a variety of techniques (hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics being the most common) to cultivate plants without the use of soil, saving resources such as water, fertilisers and, above all, using less space than traditional agriculture.
The relevance of this phenomenon can be appreciated by considering its environmental potential and process efficiency: cultivation without soil can reduce water use by 90% when compared with traditional cultivation.15 In addition, the use of a controlled environment with artificial light, humidity, and constant microclimatic conditions makes it possible to grow crops in any season, at any latitude, and in any climatic condition, ensuring greater product uniformity.16
VF systems are typically designed to minimise waste by supplying plants exclusively with the specific nutrients essential for their growth, while significantly reducing, if not eliminating, the use of pesticides.17 The possibility to cultivate crops within vertical modules, some of which may be removable, provides flexibility in selecting locations for vertical farms. Even a standard shipping container can be redesigned to accommodate a vertical farm (a practice known as ‘container farming’), thus enabling the reuse of decommissioned containers for the cultivation of crops such as basil or lettuce.18
From the point of view of climate risk mitigation, VF seems to represent (at least prima facie) a valuable alternative to traditional agriculture, given the latter’s vulnerability to extreme climatic events, which are becoming increasingly more frequent.
Furthermore, VF’s potential extends to the world of urban agriculture,19 an emerging frontier of food systems according to the FAO.20 Decommissioned industrial sites or abandoned and unused buildings are well-suited to housing vertical urban farms, offering a potential means of productive reutilisation. Moreover, they can contribute to enhancing urban food availability, shortening supply chains, and consequently reducing the environmental and climatic impact associated with food transportation.21 The possibilities for developing VF even extend to ‘domestic agriculture’ which would enable families to grow food indoors, right in their own homes.22
Currently, however, VF also faces serious challenges to its development which help explain the aforementioned crises experienced by large VF companies across geographies. The main current challenge concerns cost. Not all crops are suitable for VF which will remain a limiting factor until the sector grows through broader adoption and scale-up.23 Additionally, compared to traditional farming, VF demands significant initial investments for the materials necessary to establish the infrastructure, as well as ongoing fixed expenses for securing extensive space and hiring a highly specialised workforce.24
Another major challenge, and a significant source of cost compared to traditional agriculture, is related to energy dependency. Continuous energy consumption is required to maintain proper lighting and stable micro-climatic conditions in vertical farms. This raises two additional regulatory aspects worth considering.
First is the competition between traditional and VF. While traditional farms generally have lower labour specialisation and energy costs, vertical farms face higher costs in these areas and, at least for the moment, lower productivity.25 In other words, traditional agriculture is currently more cost competitive than VF.26
The strategic setup, therefore, of a vertical farm, including crop selection and revenue generation, represents a critical point. This is also the reason why many vertical farms are focusing on high-value products such as medicinal herbs or saffron to offset costs with higher revenues.27
Second, the energy consumption of vertical farms is crucial in evaluating their environmental and climate benefits and impact. To achieve a real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, for instance, the source of energy used must be considered. If non-renewable energy sources are utilised, the higher energy demand of VF risks merely shifting pollution upstream in the chain, rather than reducing overall emissions, thus reducing the sustainability benefits of this technology.
For this reason, some vertical farms are complex and integrated structures combining agricultural production with other activities, including life-cycle development (eg aquaculture). Some facilities are connected to photovoltaic power plants, wind farms, or other non-fossil energy sources in order to include renewable energy in their production cycle and reduce external energy supply costs.28
3 The Legal Dimensions of Vertical Farming
In addition to the above-mentioned issues, one might question the role of law and legislators concerning VF. First of all, the need for clear regulatory frameworks in this sector has already been established.29
The areas of potential regulatory intervention are numerous, ranging from medium-and long-term strategic planning, support for scientific research, inclusion of VF in agricultural normative policies and integration with urban agriculture and smart city policies.30
However, several gaps remain in the current legislation, such as the absence of specific legal definitions and uncertainties in determining applicable regulations for vertical farms. While, generally, these aspects stem from the difficulty in precisely framing a phenomenon linked to a variety of regulatory frameworks, in the case of VF, one key regulatory gap, inter alia, is interpretative doubt in identifying which set of rules apply to companies in the VF sector. Other uncertainties relate to corporate structure, compatibility with urban planning regulations, applicability of agricultural legislation, and the application of pertinent intellectual property provisions to VF materials, processes, and products. Additionally, a central regulatory issue is whether products from VF can be considered organic, which is closely linked to labelling.
Finally, one of the most pressing demands from stakeholders and operators concerns the clarification of which tax and fiscal regulations apply to vertical farms, as well as the possibility of accessing incentives and a taxation framework that thoroughly assesses all traits of the sector.31 In the Italian legal context, the question of whether the rules on agricultural enterprises also apply to vertical farms is of particular concern, as will be discussed below.
4 Vertical Agriculture and EU Policies
Moving onto a more specific analysis of regulations relevant to VF, a first domain of interest is EU law. At the EU level, however, the interest of EU institutions in VF is mainly focused on supporting scientific research. Several European VF projects are funded this way, and some of the largest companies active in the sector in Europe (such as the German company Infarm) are established in connection with research projects and ‘spin-offs’ financed by EU programmes.32
Although investment in research in this field has increased significantly in recent years, it must be noted that VF is not yet fully integrated into the EU’s main agricultural and climate policy, nor has it been addressed through dedicated support measures.33
The EU supports initiatives related to VF indirectly through specific initiatives financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).34 However, VF is not expressly mentioned in the strategic plans of the Common Agricultural Policy nor within the European Green Deal, despite the latter acknowledging the need to reinforce urban agriculture.
In Communication COM (2020) 381 of May 2020, the European Commission introduced the ‘Farm to Fork’ (F2F) strategy for a fair, healthy, and environmentally sustainable food system, as part of the European Green Deal.35 The F2F strategy also seeks to promote a new paradigm of food sustainability, viewing the environmental transition not only as an economic opportunity, but also as a catalyst for enhancing food quality standards. Yet, even the F2F strategy36 lacks explicit references to VF, despite the interest shown about ‘urban food systems’.37
It is precisely with regard to urban agriculture that the main spaces for VF at EU level, apart from the aforementioned support of scientific research, can currently be found.38
The transversal nature of VF and its tendency to intersect with different types of EU policies and competences (including at the crossroads between rural and urban agriculture) partly explain the absence of explicit references to VF within the EU’s main agricultural policy documents. An omission that, however, remains somewhat surprising in the context of plans that strongly incentivise the use of innovative, environmentally sustainable farming methods aimed at strengthening urban agriculture, reducing the use of substances, such as pesticides, and shortening supply chains.39 Arguably, this may be explained by admitting that VF is included in broader regulatory areas such as general agriculture (despite the differences highlighted with traditional cultivation) or urban agriculture (despite the fact that vertical farms may also be raised outside of urban areas), which have benefited from broader attention by EU institutions.40
Other positions taken by EU institutions should also be considered. According to EU law and EU institutions, products derived from VF do not qualify for certification as organic. This was clarified by the European Commission itself in its answer to a question for written answer to the Commission raised by Social Democrat MEP Christel Schaldemose in 2022.41 The response provided by the Commissioner for Agriculture, Polish Wojciechowski, asserted that vertical farms using hydroponics (the majority) cannot be certified as organic the reason being the lack of soil and the need for external inputs to enable plant growth. In the Commissioner’s response, in particular, reference is made to Article 5 of Regulation 2018/848 (EU),42 which includes, among the principles of organic farming: the responsible use of energy and natural resources such as water, soil, and air (Art 5 para c); the adoption of methods that ‘practice soil-related crop cultivation and land-related livestock production, or practice aquaculture which complies with the principle of the sustainable exploitation of aquatic resources’ (Art 5 para f (ii)); and the limited use of external inputs (Art 5 para g).
Based on this normative framework, hydroponic production used in a vertical farm to cultivate without soil using nutrient solutions is considered incompatible with organic farming.43 This situation does not seem likely to change, at least in the short term: the response added that it is not in the Commission’s interest to further adapt the EU organic legislation to include VF.
From a strictly legal point of view, however, the interpretation adopted does not appear to be the only one possible. Indeed, there are arguments that justify a more nuanced reading. With regard to the limit on inputs, it should be noted that Article 5 allows the use of external inputs where appropriate management practices and methods do not exist, specifying that external inputs, in such cases, must however be limited to ‘i) inputs from organic production … ; ii) natural substances or substances derived from natural substances; [or] iii) low solubility mineral fertilisers’. Indeed, these attributes are often found in the external inputs used to support the natural cycle of vertical farms, where it is common to prioritise nutrients of natural or organic origin and to reuse natural biological residues to minimise waste. The Commission’s strict stance on this point appears to underestimate the possibility that a vertical farm might cultivate its products using external inputs that meet the criteria outlined in Article 5, such as the use of natural substances and select mineral fertilisers.44
However, beyond the general characteristics and aims of organic farming regulation, the main legal obstacle to the compatibility between VF and organic certification in the EU lies in the connection with soil. This connection, as will be discussed in the Italian context, is open to different interpretations. While it can generally be understood in both a physical and functional sense, the EU regulation seems to require a strong physical link with the soil.45 In this regard, there may still be a margin (although strict) for interpretation that allows, in certain circumstances, the inclusion of products derived from VF within the scope of the Regulation 2018/848 (EU). A questionable case, for instance, could be that of aquaponics, which is not mentioned in the relevant recital or any other provision of the Regulation 2018/848 (EU). Indeed, aquaponics integrates aquaculture with plant production and is already used in some vertical farms to enhance the efficiency of the production cycle.46
5 Brief Comparative Notes
A similar situation with respect to the EU regulatory approach to VF is also found in the post-Brexit United Kingdom (UK). In addition to prohibiting the organic certification of hydroponic products, again due to the absence of soil in VF, UK legislation makes no explicit reference to vertical agriculture in key, public, multi-year programming plans, such as the Agricultural Transition Plan 2021–202447 and the Long-Term Plan for Towns,48 despite the availability of public funding for field research or the number of companies operating in the sector.49 Notably, as discussed before regarding the EU approach, the lack of an explicit reference does not preclude the possibility of providing public support to VF within those measures generally directed towards agriculture and farms.50
In general terms, however, the regulation of VF in Europe differs from the approach taken in other regions. For the purposes of this chapter, it seems appropriate to focus on legal systems where VF is the most developed and publicly supported.
For example, the US has long pursued a different general approach.51 In addition to supporting scientific research on urban and vertical agriculture,52 the US has specifically included vertical agriculture in federal agricultural policy since 2018, as part of a broader, legally-relevant category of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA).53 Specific institutions have also been established to promote and support innovative agricultural practices, including VF. These encompass the Federal Advisory Committee for Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production and the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production, the latter of which plays a key role in coordinating initiatives to promote urban agriculture.54
The regulatory approach in the US regarding compatibility with organic certification also appears to be quite different. After some initial fluctuations and uncertainty, products from hydroponic-based VF can now be certified as organic by authorised third-party certifiers, as long as they meet the additional requirements set out by the National Organic Program (NOP) and the Organic Foods Production Act.55 As a result, in the US market, VF entrepreneurs can benefit from the higher revenues associated with organic certification.
A similar situation exists in Singapore regarding organic certification, where vertical farms have been able to apply for and obtain the organic label for several years.56
In Asia, the case of China is of particular interest where strategic rural development plans include forms of urban agriculture that can be applied to VF. This aligns with their long-standing policy aimed at increasing food production.57 Incentives for vertical agriculture are also common, with the sector experiencing significant growth in the country, despite a regulatory framework that lacks specific regulations on the subject.58
Finally, the case of Japan presents some peculiar characteristics. Although already developed in the country, VF gained momentum after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, when government support and incentives for alternative forms of agriculture (including VF) contributed to the partial recovery of agricultural production losses within one decade.59
6 Vertical Farming in the Italian Legal System
In Italy, the legal issues currently related to VF are diverse and multidisciplinary. The central question is whether a vertical farmer can be classified as an agricultural entrepreneur under Italian law. The classification of VF as an agricultural enterprise has significant legal and operational implications, including the applicability of rules regarding the jurisdiction of agricultural sections of tribunals; the possibility of claiming a lien under Article 2751-bis (4) of the Civil Code; as well as the relevant insolvency regulations and tax regime applicable to vertical farms.60
While, traditionally, the rules on agricultural enterprise have been conceived and interpreted to address economic activities closely linked to the land, the definition of an agricultural entrepreneur under Article 2135 of the Italian Civil Code was later the subject of a profound reform under Legislative Decree No. 228/2001.61 The intent of the reform was, among other factors, to extend the scope of Article 2135 of the Civil Code to include innovative agricultural activities, whose organisational structures differ from traditional agriculture.62 This is precisely the approach envisaged in the revised version of Article 2135 of the Civil Code, which, following the reform, defines an agricultural entrepreneur as anyone engaged in activities ‘aimed at the care and development of a biological cycle or a necessary phase thereof, of a plant or animal nature, that uses or may use the land, forest, or fresh or marine waters’.63 The fact that, according to Article 2135 Civil Code, the use of land is not strictly necessary (‘may use the land’) thus leading to certain types of soilless cultivation (including VF) being considered agricultural enterprises.64 Scholars have emphasised that this interpretation of Article 2135 Civil Code supports the conclusion that vertical farming falls within the normative category of agricultural enterprise, given that land use is no longer strictly necessary under Italian civil law.65
Italian jurisprudence has also gradually adopted a broader interpretation of connection to the soil, moving away from a previously restrictive approach.66
The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation more recently affirmed that by referring to activities directed to the care and development of a biological cycle, the Italian legislator:
[C]learly intended to include among complementary activities even those that do not present a necessary connection between production and use of the land, being, instead, sufficient that there is a mere functional and instrumental connection with the land, outside of a strict real connection.67
Additionally, the relevant organisation of personnel, resources, and investment required for a vertical farm does not appear to be an obstacle to its classification as an agricultural enterprise. Italian jurisprudence has clarified that Article 2135 of the Civil Code imposes no limits on the economic scale, size, or technical complexity of agricultural enterprises.68
Furthermore, this broad interpretation of the Civil Code, which includes vertical farms within the scope of agricultural enterprises, could find additional support in the case law of the Constitutional Court. The Court has recognised the agricultural nature of businesses engaged in aquaculture, an activity that, as mentioned, can be integrated with vertical farms and combined with hydroponics (so-called aquaponics).69
Remaining in the constitutional context, in seeking a proper interpretation of Article 2135 of the Italian Civil Code, it seems relevant to consider the recent reform introduced by Constitutional Law No. 1 from February 2022, which amended Articles 9 and 41 of the Italian Constitution (Cost).70 The constitutional amendment of Article 41 Cost requires economic initiatives to respect environmental sustainability, thus providing a constitutional framework to protect the environment, biodiversity, and ecosystems, keeping in mind future generations. In this regard, a constitutionally-oriented interpretation of Article 2135 of the Italian Civil Code could therefore highlight the capacity for certain types of cultivation, possibly including VF, to benefit the environment and support climate action, thus justifying the assignment of the advantages reserved for agricultural enterprises to VF.71 A reading in these terms would then justify a broad interpretation of Article 2135 Civil Code to include, within the agricultural enterprise, those activities offering environmental benefits.
However, as stated above, verifying the concrete environmental and climate benefits of this type of cultivation is essential. For VF, this involves considering factors such as energy sources and assessing the overall environmental impact, including upstream and downstream emissions, while evaluating the benefits for the legal interests protected by Article 9 of the Constitution.72
Other recent developments in the Italian legal system may also enable a favourable environment for the growth of VF. Section 224 of Decree-Law No. 34/2020, converted with amendments into Law No. 17 July 2020, established an updated definition of a specific classification for activities frequently related to VF such as hydroponic and aquaponic farming for the purpose of assigning an ATECO code (ie a code used for fiscal classification of economic activities).73 According to this piece of legislation, the new classification was justified by the increased development of ‘new soilless cultivation practices applied to hydroponic and aquaponic crops, for which valorisation and promotion is necessary’.74
7 The ‘Avant-Garde’ of Vertical Farming Regulation: Regional Legislation
While interpretative uncertainties persist regarding the regulatory framework for vertical farms at the national level, partly due to the lack of a clear legal definition, some significant developments have emerged at the regional level, where the Italian Constitution establishes legislative powers for regions in certain matters.
Based on regional authority over agriculture envisaged by Article 117(4) Cost., the Lombardy Region approved Italy’s first dedicated legislation on VF in 2021.75 This piece of legislation also included the first legally-relevant definition of the phenomenon in Italy.
According to Article 2 of the regional law, ‘vertical farming’ or ‘vertical agriculture’ refers to a:
[S]ystem of agricultural cultivation in closed growth chambers with total environmental control, in the absence of soil, above ground, or even in the absence of natural light, developed on overlapping vertical modules, exploiting a combination of techniques such as aquaponics, hydroponics, or aeroponics.76
The regional law seems to consider VF as an agricultural activity rather than a commercial one, as can be appreciated from the reference to ‘cultivation’, the explicit use of the expression ‘vertical agriculture’, and also from Article 2(2) of the Lombardy law,77 which specifies that the provisions of Legislative Decrees 18 May 2001, No. 228 and 29 March 2004, No. 9978 apply to the entrepreneur carrying out VF activities. This clearly indicates that vertical farms are considered agricultural enterprises.
Another key provision, Article 3(3), envisages the establishment of vertical farms in areas designated for agriculture under Lombardy Regional Law 12/2005. The illustrative report for the Regional Law highlights the direct link between VF and environmental and climate preservation objectives, as well as the alignment with the ‘Green Revolution and Ecological Transition’ mission of the Italian Recovery Plan (‘PNRR’).79
In this regard, the regional legislative measure aims to support both conventional and innovative agricultural production that contributes to greater environmental and climatic sustainability, while promoting the growth of the ‘zero-kilometre’ food supply. From this point of view, therefore, the regional law also affirms the connection between vertical agriculture, sustainability, and food security, with special attention paid to urban areas. In this way, Regional Law 21/2021 closely links vertical agriculture with urban regeneration and smart cities.80
Furthermore, in Lombardy vertical farms can also be built by renovating existing facilities, a testimony to the comprehensive regulatory approach the Regional Law has taken towards this legal phenomenon.81 Indeed, alongside clarifications on the definition and applicable regime, the law includes support measures related to urban planning82 and tax regulations,83 as well as coordination provisions aimed at aligning the interventions of Regional Law 21/2021 with the region’s urban food policy projects (Article 4).
8 Conclusions
Vertical farming is an emerging phenomenon with significant potential, though it also presents certain limitations.
VF may contribute to the sustainability of agrifood systems while also creating opportunities for urban regeneration, smart city development, and metropolitan food security.
This chapter presents analysis to support the idea that a clear and coherent regulatory framework is essential to enable the development of VF. This is especially important given the initial challenges faced by many businesses related to efficiency and cost, which have often fuelled scepticism towards these agricultural practices. Strengthening collaboration between economic operators, policymakers, and the research and innovation sectors will be crucial to foster the development of VF under a regulatory point of view.
In this regard, this chapter highlighted that a key legal challenge in regulating VF lies in its cross-disciplinary nature. Indeed, vertical farms operate at the intersection of several fields, including agricultural policy, urban planning, ecological transition, and the regulation of innovative enterprises. This underscores the need for effective regulatory mechanisms and a comprehensive framework to connect and coordinate different sectors.
Legislators must also consider the consequences that overly rigid regulation—especially if motivated by ends other than the pursuit of effective protection of fundamental needs such as nutrition and public health—may have on European companies.84 The global VF market is currently quite polarised, with Asia and North America representing the two main geographies where it has flourished. As noted above, despite a diverse and heterogeneous landscape, specific regulatory attention to VF and controlled environment agriculture in other jurisdictions appears to be more developed than in the EU, where VF could benefit from the measures provided to support general and urban agriculture.
In this regard, certain features of the Italian legal system could offer promising opportunities for the development of vertical farms. Italy benefits from a geographical context known for its world-class food production, a strong manufacturing sector that can support technological advancements, abundant renewable energy sources, and robust support networks for agricultural businesses. The Italian legal context also offers potentially favourable elements, including recent regulatory and judicial trends aimed at extending the legal and economic benefits of agricultural enterprises to soilless activities. This is compounded by incentives and legal developments at the regional level. Lombardy’s regional law represents the first comprehensive regulatory framework for VF, advancing a promotional regulatory model that other Italian regions may soon follow. In Veneto, a region where several VF companies are already active, the Regional Council is currently discussing a proposal for a regional law aimed at introducing ‘support measures for vertical farming’.85
The regional legislative powers in agriculture envisaged by the Italian Constitution could allow other regions to adopt additional measures, especially given the lack of clarity on this topic found in the current national and European regulatory frameworks. Indeed, such regional initiatives could provide valuable regulatory support for operators and stakeholders in this emerging sector, which faces both regulatory gaps and economic difficulties such as high initial investment costs and scarcity of a specialised workforce.
Yet, a national intervention on the subject also appears appropriate to avoid a ‘mosaic’ of different regional legislations. Moreover, a national framework on innovative agriculture and VF would help coordinate these activities with the relevant missions of the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), clarify the legal status of enterprises in this sector, and address the limits of regional legislative powers. Indeed, based on a different possible interpretation, the classification of vertical farmers as agricultural entrepreneurs under the Italian Civil Code can also be considered as a matter of civil law, thus falling within the exclusive legislative authority of the State under Article 117(2)(l) of the Italian Constitution concerning civil law (ordinamento civile).
Finally, national legislation would clearly help to define the applicable tax regime, including incentives and benefits, and prevent regulatory discrepancies between different regions.86
Bibliography
Albisinni F, ‘La sicurezza alimentare veicolo di innovazione istituzionale’ (2009) 4 Rivista di diritto alimentare 15.
Antonelli M, Castaldi S and Valentini R, ‘Cambiamento climatico e cibo’ (2020) 1 Equilibri 36.
Beacham AM, Vickers LH and Monaghan JM, ‘Vertical Farming: a Summary of Approaches to Growing Skywards’ (2019) 94(3) Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 277–283.
Benke K and Tomkins B, ‘Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture’ (2017) 13 Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 13–26.
Bruno F, Il diritto alimentare. Sviluppo sostenibile e tutela della salute (Wolters Kluwer 2022).
Canfora I, ‘Art. 2135 c.c.’ in Bonilini G, Confortini M and Granelli C (eds), Codice Civile Commentato (Utet 2012).
Carotti L, Pistillo, Ilaria Zauli, Davide Meneghello, Michael Martin, Giuseppina Pennisi, Giorgio Gianquinto, Francesco Orsini, ‘Improving Efficiency In Vertical Farming: Effects Of Growing Systems, Far-Red Radiation And Planting Density On Lettuce Cultivation, (2023) 285 Agricultural Water Management 108365.
Cerbone C, ‘Pratiche virtuose contro lo spreco alimentare in Italia: alcune note a partire dalle recenti proposte di legge sulla c.d. doggy bag’ (2024) 24 federalismi.it 78.
Costato L, Corso di diritto agrario (Giuffré 2004).
Costato L ‘La nuova versione dell’articolo 2135 cod. civ. e la Corte di cassazione’ (2004) 1 Rivista di Diritto Agrario.
Della Giustina C, ‘La transizione ecologica attraverso l’agricoltura: prime riflessioni in tema di “vertical farming”. Il modello ESG di agricoltura nella “smart city”?’ (2022) 1 Il diritto dell’agricoltura 60.
Dell’Anno P, Diritto dell’ambiente (Giuffrè 2022).
Despommier D, The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century (Thomas Dunne Books 2010).
Diehl AJ, Sweeney E, Wong B, Sia CS, Yao H, Prabhudesai M, ‘Feeding Cities: Singapore’s Approach to Land Use Planning for Urban Agriculture’ (2020) 26 Global Food Security.
Ferrando T and De Gregorio V, The Right to Food in Italy between Present and Future (2018) 11.
Formici G, Violini L, Lanzoni D, Rebucci R, Cheli F, Sundaram T.S., ‘Cultured Meat in the European Union: Legislative Context and Food Safety Issues’ (2024) 8 Current Research in Food Science 1.
Galan S ‘Urbanization rate of the population worldwide, by regional development 1950–2050. Percentage of Population Living in Urban Areas Worldwide from 1950 to 2050’ (2018) Statista,
Germanò A and Rook Basile E, ‘Impresa agricola’ in Sacco R (ed), Digesto delle Discipline Privatistiche (Utet 2012).
Grassi S, ‘La cultura dell’ambiente nell’evoluzione costituzionale’ (2023) 3 Rivista AIC.
Interdonato M, ‘Le colture fuori suolo nel reddito agrario, tra l’indispensabile presenza del fondo e la difficile trasposizione delle conoscenze tecniche di tali colture su quelle tradizionali ai fini della valutazione dei limiti dell’agrarietà’ (17 May 2022) Rivista di Diritto Tributario.
Kuljanic Npa, What if We Grew Plants Vertically? (EPRS, Bruxelles 2022).
Lupo A, ‘Diritto al cibo e cambiamenti climatici: quale futuro per la sicurezza alimentare globale?’ (2022) 1 Rivista di Diritto Alimentare 54.
Martinez M, ‘Vertical Farming: A Bottom-Up Approach’ (2023) 2 Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental, & Innovation Law 1–19.
McEldowney J, Urban Agriculture in Europe: Patterns, Challenges and Policies (EPRS, Brussels 2017).
Mezzacapo E, ‘Mind the Gap: Assessing Member States’ Implementation of Farm- to-Fork Targets within the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy’ (2024) 15(2) European Journal of Risk Regulation 265–279.
Orsini F, ‘Food Vertigo. Processi e dispositive per la resilienza alimentare metropolitana’ (2022) 23 Techne 104–116.
Ramajoli M, ‘Quale futuro per la regolazione alimentare’ (2021) 2 Milan Law Review.
Scaffardi L, ‘La sicurezza alimentare ovvero come il “diritto a togliersi la fame” evolve in un mondo che cambia’ (2023) 2 DPCE Online 59.
Scaffardi L and Formici G (eds), Novel Foods and Edible Insects in the European Union: An Interdisciplinary Analysis (Springer 2022).
Shabandeh M, ‘Projected Vertical Farming Market Worldwide from 2022 to 2032’ (2023) Statista.
United Nations General Assembly, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development UNGA Res 70/1, UN Doc A/RES/70/1 (25 September 2015).
Valette É, Blay-Palmer A, Intoppa B, Di Battista A, Roudelle O, Chaboud G, Evaluating Sustainable Food System Innovations: A Global Toolkit for Cities (Routledge 2023).
Van Der Meulen B and Wernaart B, ‘Comparative Food Law’ in Roberts M T (ed), Research Handbook on International Food Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2023).
Van Delden SH, SharathKumar, M., Butturini,Graamans, L.J.A., Heuvelink, E., Kacira, M., Kaiser, E., Klamer, R.S., Klerkx, L., Kootstra, G., Loeber, A., Schouten, R.E., Stanghellini, C., Van Ieperen, W., Verdonk, J.C., Vialet-Chabrand, S., Woltering, E.J., Van de Zedde, R., Zhang, Y., Marcelis, L.F.M., ‘Current Status and Future Challenges in Implementing and Upscaling Vertical Farming Systems’ (2021) 2 Nature Food.
Van Gerrewey T, Boon N and Geelen D, ‘Vertical Farming: The Only Way is Up?’ (2021) 12(1) Agronomy 7.
Vîrtosu I and Li C, ‘Vertical Farming Perspective and Challenges: A Comparative Review between China and the EU’ (CEEeGov 2024) 13 Central and Eastern European eDem and eGov Days 2024 1–12.
Whitfield S and Marshall A, ‘Defining and Delivering “Sustainable” Agriculture in the UK After Brexit: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experiences of Agricultural Reform’ (2017) 15(5) International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 501–513.
Zhang H, Asutosh A and Wei H, ‘Implementing Vertical Farming at University Scale to Promote Sustainable Communities: A Feasibility Analysis’ (2018) 10(12) Sustainability 1–18.
Ritchie Hannah, Rosado Pablo, and Roser Max ‘Environmental Impacts of Food Production’ (OurWorldinData.org 2022) <https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food> accessed 18 June 2025.
Bernd Van Der Meulen and Bart Wernaart, ‘Comparative Food Law’ in Michael T Roberts (ed), Research Handbook on International Food Law (Edward Elgar 2023) 13; Francesco Bruno, Il Diritto Alimentare. Sviluppo Sostenibile e Tutela della Salute (Wolters Kluwer 2022) 204. It should be noted that although in early 2024 the International Commission on Stratigraphy ruled out the Anthropocene as a true geological era, this did not diminish the conceptual relevance of this concept to identify the present historical moment and the impact of human activities on the environment, climate, and biodiversity. See International Union of Geological Sciences, ‘The Anthropocene’. (IUGS 2024) <www.iugs.org/_files/ugd/f1fc07_40d1a7ed58de458c9f8f24de5e739663.pdf?index=true> accessed 18 June 2025.
See Marta Antonelli, Simona Castaldi and Riccardo Valentini, ‘Cambiamento Climatico e Cibo’ (2020) 1 Equilibri 36.
Ritchie, Rosado and Roser, ‘Environmental Impacts of Food Production’ (n 1).
Other relevant data in this context concern the reduction of food waste, which makes it possible to increase the amount of available food without augmenting production and, thus, addresses related climatic and environmental effects. On this subject see Lucia Scaffardi, ‘La Sicurezza Alimentare ovvero come Il Diritto a Togliere la Fame Evolve in un Mondo che Cambia’, (2023) 2 DPCE Online 59; Tomaso Ferrando, Valentina De Gregorio, Sara Lorenzini and Lidia Mahillon ‘The Right to Food in Italy between Present and Future’ (2018) 11 and Chiara Cerbone, ‘Pratiche Virtuose Contro lo Spreco Alimentare in Italia: Alcune Note a Partire dalle Recenti Proposte di Legge sulla c.d. Doggy Bag’ (2024) 24 federalismi.it 78.
See Galan S ‘Urbanization rate of the population worldwide, by regional development 1950–2050. Percentage of Population Living in Urban Areas Worldwide from 1950 to 2050’ (2018) Statista, <https://www.statista.com/statistics/671366/change-in-urbanization-of-countries-worldwide-by-regional-development/> accessed 14 September 2024. Available via campus license (University of Genova, 2024).
For more, see Lucia Scaffardi and Giulia Formici (eds.), Novel Foods and Edible Insects in the European Union: An Interdisciplinary Analysis (Springer 2022).
See Giulia Formici and others, ‘Cultured Meat in the European Union: Legislative Context and Food Safety Issues’ (2024) 8 Current Research in Food Science 1.
For a general reconstruction, see Margherita Ramajoli, ‘Quale Futuro per la Regolazione Alimentare’ (2021) 2 Milan Law Review.
It should be noted, for the sake of completeness, that certain types of vertical cultivation were also used in the past. References to similar practices are found with regard to the gardens of Babylon and forms of cultivation by Aztec populations.
Ferdinando Albisinni, ‘La Sicurezza Alimentare Veicolo di Innovazione Istituzionale’ (2009) 4 Rivista di Diritto Alimentare 15.
As it will be discussed below, in order to assess the actual suitability of VF, the energy source used by vertical farms must be taken into account.
Mahsa Shahbandeh ‘Projected Vertical Farming Market Worldwide from 2022 to 2032’ (Statista 2023) <https://www.statista.com/statistics/487666/projection-vertical-farming-market-worldwide/> accessed 18 June 2025.
The term ‘vertical farming’ originates from the research of Professor Dickson Despommier of Columbia University in the 2000s. Despommier argued for the need to bring farming practices back into urban spaces by developing them vertically in controlled modules in order to reduce the environmental impact of intensive farming practices. See Dickson Despommier, The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century (Thomas Dunne Books 2010); Dickson Despommier, ‘The Rise of Vertical Farms’ (2009) 301(5) Scientific American 80–87.
See Laura Carotti and others ‘Improving water use efficiency in vertical farming: Effects of growing systems, far-red radiation and planting density on lettuce cultivation’ (2023) 285 Agricultural Water Management. Additional benefits of VF include the reduction of demand for new soil, the use of which has potentially harmful consequences such as increased desertification, erosion, and reduced biodiversity.
This aspect also supports waste reduction as many agricultural products are discarded from the market or disposed of due mainly to aesthetic defects.
Some of the largest companies in VF worldwide can be found in Singapore, eg Sky Greens, the US, eg Aerofarms and Farm.one, and in the EU, eg Infarm. In Italy, too, small and medium-sized companies are present in the sector, such as Planet Farms and Zerofarm (Zero s.r.l.).
Cf. Carrasco, Gilda, Fernando Fuentes-Peñailillo, Paula Manríquez, Pabla Rebolledo, Ricardo Vega, Karen Gutter, and Miguel Urrestarazu, ‘Enhancing Leafy Greens’ Production: Nutrient Film Technique Systems and Automation in Container-Based Vertical Farming’ (2024) 14(9) Agronomy 1932. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14091932.
See Élodie Valette and others, Evaluating Sustainable Food System Innovations: A Global Toolkit for Cities (Routledge 2023).
Cf. FAO, Rikolto, RUAF, Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture Sourcebook from Production to Food Systems (2022).
See Sander H. Van Delden and others, ‘Current Status and Future Challenges in Implementing and Upscaling Vertical Farming Systems’ (2021) 2 Nature food 944.
See Gary Nissembaum, ‘Legal Aspects of Implementing Vertical Farming Solutions’ (2021) <gdnlaw.com>, accessed 1 March 2025.
Sander, Van Delden and others (n 22) 946.
Sander, Van Delden and others (n 22) 946.
The energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting increase in energy costs has undoubtedly contributed to the financial difficulties of some VF groups, especially in Europe.
Traditional agriculture also undoubtedly requires relevant initial investments in machinery, operations, fertilisers, plant protection products, and irrigation systems.
Andrew M. Beacham, Laura H. Vickers and James M. Monaghan, ‘Vertical Farming: a Summary of Approaches to Growing Skywards’ (2019) 94(3) Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 277. VF also prevents environmental contamination which is essential in medicinal herb production. Several companies have begun sourcing from the premium crop market because of its product quality, such as the American brand Oishii, which produces strawberries for high-end cuisine.
This may also help reduce the final cost of products from vertical agriculture, making it more competitive with traditional agriculture. See Kurt Benke and Bruce Tomkins, ‘Future food-production systems: Vertical farming and controlled-environment agriculture’ (2017) 13 Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 13, 16.
See Thijs Van Gerrewey, Nico Boon, Danny Geelen,’Vertical Farming: The Only Way is Up?’ (2021) 12(1) Agronomy 7; Sander, Van Delden and others (n 21) 953–955, arguing that ‘To realise the full potential of vertical farming for addressing these food supply-chain challenges, policy blind spots and ambiguities must be addressed’.
See Filippo Orsini, ‘Food Vertigo. Processi e Dispositive per la Resilienza Alimentare Metropolitana’ (2022) 23 Techne 104–116.
On this point, see Maurizio Interdonato, ‘Le Colture Fuori Suolo nel Reddito Agrario, tra l’Indispensabile Presenza del Fondo e la Difficile Trasposizione delle Conoscenze Tecniche di tali Colture su quelle Tradizionali ai Fini della Valutazione dei Limiti dell’Agrarietà’, (2022) Rivista di Diritto Tributario.
See <https://eic.ec.europa.eu/success-stories/urban-farming_en> accessed 19 June 2025. See also the project PLANET FARMS LIFE, reference: LIFE19 ENV/IT/000142 <https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/life/publicWebsite/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=759> accessed 19 June 2025.
On this point, see Nera Kuljanic, What if We Grew Plants Vertically? (EPRS, 2022), arguing that VF ‘is not covered by EU agricultural and climate policies’.
See Kuljanic (n 33) 2, referring to the project ‘GROWx 2.0 Robotic vertical farm’ financed by the ERDF and another project of VF developed in the Canary Islands and financed by the EAFRD. <https://ec.europa.eu/enrd/sites/default/files/project/attachments/gp_es_greenfodderproduction_web_fin_0.pdf> accessed 19 June 2025.
Antonietta Lupo, ‘Diritto al Cibo e Cambiamenti Climatici: Quale Futuro per la Sicurezza Alimentare Globale?’ (2022) 1 Rivista di Diritto Alimentare 54.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: ‘A farm-to-fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally Friendly Food System’, COM/2020/381.
See Enrico Mezzacapo, ‘Mind the Gap: Assessing Member States’ Implementation of Farm-to-Fork Targets within the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy’ (2024) 15(2) European Journal of Risk Regulation 265–279.
See James McEldowney, Urban Agriculture in Europe: Patterns, Challenges and Policies (EPRS, 2017). The report considers VF as a form of urban agriculture. See, in this regard, the reply E-001084/2022(ASW) to the related parliamentary question: <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-001084-ASW_EN.html>, in which the Commission ‘considers urban agriculture (UA), including controlled environment agriculture (CEA), a part of Europe’s food production landscape’. Notably, the answer also focuses on supporting research and innovation, pointing out that ‘The EU’s Farm to Fork Strategy has identified urban food systems as a key area for research and innovation as part of the research and innovation programme Horizon Europe.’
In the same vein, see Kuljanic (n 33) 2, according to whom VF should be further integrated into European policies.
Indeed, although small vertical farms are technologically feasible, such small-scale configurations are generally not economically optimal due to the relatively high initial investment required. Larger installations, typically a minimum of 500 square metres, may offer quicker returns on investment, which appears to be the prevailing trend. However, this also poses challenges for the integration of vertical farms into urban environments. See <https://ifarm.fi/> accessed 19 June 2025.
European Parliament, question and answer E-002588/2022 to the Commission. <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-002588_EN.html> (question) and <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2022-002588-ASW_EN.html> (answer) both accessed 19 June 2025.
Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repeal of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (2018) OJ L 150/1 (EU).
This is subject to limited exceptions for some specific crops, including the special derogation granted to Finland, Sweden, and Denmark until 2031.
In countries where organic certification has been granted to production from vertical agriculture, on the other hand, the use of specific nutrients and inputs of natural origin is usually required.
This is particularly evident from recital 28 of the Regulation 2018/848 (EU), according to which ‘As organic plant production is based on nourishing the plants primarily through the soil ecosystem, plants should be produced on and in living soil in connection with the subsoil and bedrock. Consequently, hydroponic production should not be allowed, nor growing plants in containers, bags, or beds where the roots are not in contact with the living soil’.
It should be noted that aquaponics generally does not use soil. Plants develop roots in specially established environments such as layers of solid and semi-solid substances or within nutrient-rich water-based suspensions from the breeding of aquatic organisms. Despite the non-exclusion of aquaponics, explicitly, compatibility with the regulation would remain doubtful even in this case.
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (UK), The Path to Sustainable Farming: An Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024 (2020) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-transition-plan-2021-to-2024> accessed 19 June 2025.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), Our Long-Term Plan for Towns (September 2023) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-long-term-plan-for-towns>.
On the connection between urban agriculture and the promotion of food sustainability and food security more generally, see Bethan R Mead and others, ‘Does Urban Agriculture Contribute to Food Security, and How Might This Be Achieved?’ (2024) 83 Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 195.
See for instance Section 2.2 of the Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024 (n 47), 12 which refers to general measures aimed at improving farm prosperity.
Michael Martinez, ‘Vertical Farming: A Bottom-Up Approach’ (2023) 2 Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental, & Innovation Law, 1–19.
This support is mainly due to funding programmes and grants from the USDA—Agricultural Research Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture). See USDA—Agricultural Research Service (US), Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural Production Research, Education, and Extension Initiative, 7 USC 5925g.
See the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and Kelly J. Walters and others, ‘Historical, Current, and Future Perspectives for Controlled Environment Hydroponic Food Crop Production in the United States’ (2020) 55(6) HortScience 758–767.
On this topic, see Congressional Research Service (US), Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Production (31 August 2023).
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, amended by Law 109-97 (10 November 2005).
The company Sky Greens was among the first in the world, in June 2019, to obtain organic certification (Singapore Standard 632 SS 632) for its hydroponics-based VF products. See Ann J. Diehl and others, ‘Feeding Cities: Singapore’s Approach to Land Use Planning for Urban Agriculture’ (2020) 26 Global Food Security 100377.
See Ina Vîrtosu and Chen Li, ‘Vertical Farming Perspective and Challenges: A Comparative Review between China and the EU’ (CEEeGov 2024) 13 in Central and Eastern European eDem and eGov Days 2024 1.
See He Zhang, Ashish Asutosh and Hu Wei, ‘Implementing Vertical Farming at University Scale to Promote Sustainable Communities: A Feasibility Analysis’ (2018) 10(12) Sustainability 1.
See Daniela De Lorenzo, ‘Food from Fukushima: Restoring Trusts Using AgriTech’ <https://www.forbes.com/sites/danieladelorenzo/2023/07/24/food-from-fukushima--restoring-trusts-using-agritech/> accessed 19 June 2025.
See Interdonato (n 31).
On the reform see Luigi Costato, ‘La nuova versione dell’articolo 2135 cod. civ. e la Corte di cassazione’ (2004) 1(I) Rivista di Diritto Agrario 3–12.
Irene Canfora, ‘Art. 2135 c.c.’, in Giovanni Bonilini, Massimo Confortini and Carlo Granelli (eds.), Codice Civile Commentato (Utet, 2012). The author argues that the reform entailed a substantial extension of the scope of the agricultural enterprise, where agrarianism and connection with the land are replaced by the care of a biological cycle or a phase thereof. See also Luigi Costato, Corso di Diritto Agrario, (Giuffré, 2004) 106.
See Alberto Germanò, Eva Rook Basile, ‘Impresa agricola’, in Rodolfo Sacco (ed.), Digesto delle Discipline Privatistiche (Utet, 2012).
Court of Cassation, I, 5 December 2002, No. 17251, according to which ‘the legislative amendment considers the “possibility”, and no longer the “necessity”, of using the fund, relegating such use to a merely potential fact’.
See Camilla della Giustina, ‘La Transizione Ecologica Attraverso l’agricoltura: Prime Riflessioni in Tema di “Vertical Farming”. Il Modello ESG di Agricoltura nella “Smart City”?’ (2022) 1 Il diritto dell’agricoltura 60.
This approach was motivated mainly by an intent to limit the number of exceptions from insolvency procedures granted to ordinary commercial enterprises.
Court of Cassation, IV, 7 March 2018, No. 5391.
Court of Appeal Naples, Decree, 16/01/2003, (2003) 2 Diritto Fallimentare 948.
See Constitutional Court. nos. 104/2012 and 190/2001. Particularly, in the decision No. 104/2012, the Italian Court stated that ‘On the other hand, the circumstance that aquaculture, typically carried out by the fish farmer, can be traced back to an agricultural entrepreneurial activity is a fact that has long been established in the case law of this Court’.
See Domenico Amirante, Costituzionalismo Ambientale (Il Mulino 2022) 110; Stefano Grassi, ‘La Cultura dell’Ambiente nell’Evoluzione Costituzionale’ (2023) 3 Rivista AIC 219–254; Paolo Dell’Anno, Diritto dell’Ambiente (Giuffrè 2022).
Cf. Camilla Della Giustina, ‘La Transizione Ecologica’ (n 65) 61.
Article 9 Cost. states that ‘The Republic promotes the development of culture and scientific and technical research. It protects the Nation’s landscape and historical and artistic heritage. It protects the environment, biodiversity and ecosystems, including in the interest of future generations. The law of the State regulates the ways and forms of animal protection’.
Decree-Law No. 34/2020, converted with amendments by Law No. 77 of 17 July 2020.
The ATECO code classification was finally updated in 2021 with the inclusion of new corresponding sub-codes in section A, related to Agricultural Activities.
Regional Law of Lombardia No 21 of 8 November 2021 on ‘Urban, peri-urban, and metropolitan agriculture’. On the legislative power of Italian regions over agriculture, see Constitutional Court No. 12/2004, which endorsed a broad reading of regional legislative power in agricultural matters, stating that the activity relating to the production of plants and animals belongs at the heart of agriculture (and therefore belongs under the authority of the regions according to Italian Constitution). See Luca Antonini ‘Art. 117 Cost.’ in Raffaele Bifulco, Alfonso Celotto, and Marco Olivetti (eds.), Commentario alla Costituzione (Vol. III, UTET 2006).
Vertical farms are also defined as facilities where the cultivation systems referred to in Article 2(1)(a) are implemented.
Cf. Camilla Della Giustina ‘La Transizione Ecologica’ (n 65) 49. Lombardia approved this piece of legislation invoking the legislative authority of Regions over agriculture pursuant to Article 117(4) Cost. It is worth noting that the Government did not challenge the Lombardia law before the Constitutional Court arguing a conflict of legislative powers.
‘Provisions on subjects and activities, corporate integrity, and administrative simplification’.
See the Illustrative Report to Project of regional Law No. 192 of 21 October 2021, Lombardia Region, Regional Council.
On this topic, see Giuseppe F Ferrari (ed.), Smart Cities. L’Evoluzione di un’Idea (Mimesis 2020).
It is worth underlining that vertical farms co-located in existing buildings and urban areas pose further regulatory issues with respect to elements such as noise emissions, the adaptability of existing spaces, and construction materials.
Including the possibility of establishing vertical farms in buildings intended for residential use.
Such as the extension of urban regeneration incentives regulated by Lombardia Regional Law No. 12/2005 to the renovation of existing buildings for the construction of vertical farms.
In this regard, it is worth mentioning EFSA’s Technical report of 18.5.2021 (https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EM-6658) <https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-6808> accessed 19 June 2025. In this technical opinion related to the authorisation procedure of two traditional foods from third countries pursuant to Article 14 of EU Regulation 2015/2283, EFSA stated that, although VF was a different production process from the one traditionally used to grow plants, the fact that the production process had taken place by means of VF techniques did not raise concerns regarding food safety.
Veneto Region, proposal of regional law No. 160/2023. A further proposal of regional law under discussion aims to introduce ‘Provisions for urban and peri-urban agriculture’ (Veneto Region, proposal of regional law No. 162/2023).
Cf. Interdonato (n 31).