Seafood trading, respect of the rules and guarantees for consumers Seafood represents an important component, whether essential, in the human feeding, but their particular composition make them also less durable then any other food with a high proteinic content. This is due to the large amount of non-proteinic azotic compounds in their muscular tissue. This substances, which includes free amino acids and volatile azotic bases such as ammonia, trimetilammine (TMA), creatinine, taurine, betaine, uric acid, anserine, carnosine and histamine, are actively used by bacteria during the degradation processes. In the Manipulation Procedures for Fresh Seafood’s Code, published by Fao in 1973, is particularly emphasized the necessity to carry out attentively preliminary operations of the seafood treatment, as guarantee of preservability and, therefore, of salubrity of the same ones. It is evident that inappropriate manipulations such as insufficient washing and exposition to atmospheric agents, particularly the high temperatures, as well as the evisceration or coarse portioning of fillets, can prejudice the quality of the product, reducing its preservability, both because of self-degradation phenomena of tissues and because of bacteria reproduction. To protect salubrity guarantees of fishy food, the Italian rules, acquiring the Directive 91/493 EEC with the Decree 531/92 with the force of law, contains strict check rules along the distribution series. However, as I am going to argue, several questions exist which are placed between theory and practice and not only because of the effects of the differences between sanitary and trading rules. It is known that 125/59 law establishes that wholesale trade is “free”, but the same 531 Decree with force of law, which makes the inspective check compulsory on the whole product before the first commercialization, does not explicit the obligation to the conferment to a market for production. Infact, it provides with the release of derogations to effect the so-called “decant on the quay”. Substantially, this means that the unloaded product can skip the local market and can be directed to other destinations, establishments included, in a perfectly legitimate way. With successive circulars, the Ministry of Health has clarified that, in such circumstances, the responsible for the firm who receives the non-inspected product, has the obligation to inform the local veterinary service and obtain the inspection of the same product before using it in the production process. It is good to remember that, differently from wholesale markets where veterinary is a part of the staff, the inspection activity in the establishments is effected at “regular intervals”, as law establish. Furthermore, compatibly with the operative autonomy of services, in the majority of unloading points having a wholesale market, the veterinarian does his inspective functions almost exclusively inside the market structure and not in the quay. Of course, it is not surprising that the unloaded product could easily go away from the quay without any check and, consequently, nothing prevents that lots escape to successive check at destination, seeing that they should be realized on call of the trader. It is evident that the evasion of sanitary checks becomes a tool for fiscal evasion, whereas the staff of veterinary service cannot apparently guarantee daily presences in the establishments, facing daily purchases effected directly in the quay during the fishing season. Moreover, the level of the checks and the rules on the way to treat fishy products, from the unloading to the different phases of sale, do not result of course homogeneous in the national territory. It can happen that, in certain situations, the exposition on sale of the products is allowed on the road, often without contemporary restrictions of traffic. Whereas, somewhere else the simple lack of mosquito nets in the window of the market is pointed out by the competent service as serious structural want. Everything could be complicated if the fishy product becomes absolutely anonym in the distribution chain. Therefore, what is not strictly checked uphill cannot be then contested in the shoal of fish, except if it is visibly altered in the sense of freshness. Apart from the initiatives of characterization and recognition of specific productions, which represent surely a valid help for the valorisation and the promotion to consumption of the national fish, it is evident that the problems I briefly exposed here solicit everybody to an attentive reflection, from the competent organisms for legislation, to the ones competent to apply checks, and not only. The written rules must result applicable and applicated before resulting strict, without substantial difference right through, leaving few ways out who does not do correctly his work to and, even less, the usual crafty men to. The protection of the consumer is certainly involved, but also the defence of a consistent productive voice of national economics.