The Administrative Ordering of Nature and Society – Precaution and Food Safety at the Molecular and Global Levels

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaap C. Hanekamp ◽  
Jan Kwakman ◽  
Roel Pieterman ◽  
Paolo F. Ricci
Keyword(s):  
Food Security ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Safety Testing ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Food Safety Regulation

Responding to public fears and the loss of confidence in the aftermath of several food safety crises in the 1990s and 2000s, more and more regulatory laws have increasingly been affected by the precautionary principle. To clarify how those developments can have adverse consequences, we discuss two very different cases. First, at the molecular level we discuss the problems the system encounters by strictly applying the linear no-threshold (LNT) at low doses model, which was adopted in response to fears about the effects of ionizing radiations. Second, at a global scale, we discuss the problems associated with the precautionary regulation on Illegal, Unreported and Unregistered Fisheries that came into effect January 1, 2010. The technical aspects of food safety testing and their impacts are perhaps unknown to policy makers but they do dominate safety decisions. Both examples show that strict application of the precautionary principle produce deleterious side effects, which go against the very policy values that the precautionary regulation should protect. We show, in particular, that overly precautionary food safety regulation may harm food security. We conclude in the EU and other Western nations, problems of food security are much more relevant to human health and life expectancy than food safety. We recommend that current food safety regulation based on the precautionary risk-regulation reflex should normatively be re-evaluated with a complete regard for the values of food security – both within and outside the EU.

Food Safety, Coronavirus and Risk Prevention: Future Perspectives in Four Proposals

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Dario BEVILACQUA
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Risk Prevention ◽  
Future Perspectives ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Sole Purpose ◽  
Codex Alimentarius Commission ◽  
The Precautionary Principle

COVID-19 is a zoonosis, a disease transmitted by an animal to humans. The diffusion of the outbreak is therefore born of an unsuitable, insufficient, excessively permissive food safety system. Hence, the regulation of food safety plays a central role in the protection of health and has done so on a global scale. The overall regulation of food safety therefore requires an increase in the level of health protection, even at the expense of commercial prerogatives. For these purposes, four reform measures are suggested: to transform the Codex Alimentarius Commission into an organisation that adopts international standards with the sole purpose of protecting health; to apply the precautionary principle on a global scale and in international organisations; to strengthen the mandatory labelling tool; and to create a worldwide system of controls.

Effective governance of food safety regulation across EU Member States: Towards operationalization

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-572
Author(s):  
Giulia BAZZAN
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Effective Governance ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Development Framework ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Food Safety Regulation

AbstractThis article seeks to make a contribution to the food safety regulation literature, and to the broader framework of risk regulation, in the attempt to establish both theoretically and empirically what can be intended as effective governance of food safety regulation. The aim is to review existing measures of effectiveness of food safety governance, and to give a preliminary definition of effectiveness, together with a theoretical perspective on how to operationalise it, eventually proposing an empirical measurement. Effectiveness of food safety governance can be measured – on the one hand – as the capacity of consumers’ protection, and thus, as the minimisation of risk related to food, and – on the other hand – as the capacity of protection of producers’ interests, in order to ensure competitiveness within the market. Distinguishing food safety delivered from food safety perceived, the article seeks to analyse dimensions of effectiveness related to both the protection of consumers and producers, and to the minimisation of risk, drawing upon Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) and, particularly, her conceptualisation of opportunistic behaviour.

scholarly journals Judicial Review of Compliance with the Precautionary Principle from Paraquat to Blaise: “Quantitative Thresholds,” Risk Assessment, and the Gap Between Regulation and Regulatory Implementation

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-215
Author(s):  
Giulia Claudia Leonelli
Keyword(s):  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Acceptable Risk ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
True Nature ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
The Third ◽  
Risk Management Process ◽  
Risk Managers ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis Article frames the precautionary principle as an inner limit to the EU institutions’ broad discretion in the field of EU risk regulation, contextualizing recourse to the principle against the more encompassing backdrop of socially acceptable risk approaches. On these grounds, it inquires to what extent the precautionary principle may be successfully invoked in challenges to acts which are deemed insufficiently protective. The opening sections set the ground for the analysis. The third section analyzes challenges to regulatory acts, arguing that the Court has followed a quantitative threshold approach. This is legally tenable and appropriate; however, it cannot do justice to the true nature of the precautionary principle. The following sections analyze cases involving legislative acts. This includes an in-depth examination of the recent Blaise case, which has put judicial review of compliance with the precautionary principle under the spotlight. Against this overall background, this Article concludes that judicial review can hardly do justice to the precautionary principle, as applicable to the risk management process and underpinning EU legislative frameworks. It will ultimately rest on EU risk managers and EU legislators to ensure that the principle is applied and that its overarching goals are pursued.

Different Actors, Different Factors – Science and Other Legitimate Factors in the EU and National Food Safety Regulation

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Szajkowska
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
Market Mechanism ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Safety Measures ◽  
Risk Managers ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Food Safety Regulation

According to the principle of risk analysis established by Regulation 178/2002, food safety measures in the EU and Member States must be based on scientific risk assessment. Apart from science, however, decision makers should take into account other legitimate factors, such as societal, ethical or traditional concerns. The extent to which risk managers can deviate from scientific evaluations in considering these factors depends on how much discretion is conferred on public authorities. This article compares the discretion at both national and Union levels of food safety regulation in the context of the internal market mechanism by analysing the standard review applied to food safety measures by the European judiciary.

Risk versus Hazard before the EU Courts – A Comment

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joakim Zander
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
European System ◽  
The Eu

Professor Lofstedt presents a convincing illustration of the inconsistencies inherent in a European system of regulation where Member States choose whether to regulate based on assessments of risks or hazards depending on the product concerned. Particularly striking is the candid comment of a Swedish official who seems to marvel at the conflicting positions of his own government. The quote reminds this author of an official in the Swedish Ministry of Environment who in an interview stated that the application of regulation would be widely different if the precautionary principle as included in the Swedish Environmental Code or the precautionary principle as included in the Swedish Planning Code were to be employed.1 For a lawyer – or anyone else with an interest in the rule of law – such inconsistencies pose serious problems with regard to legal certainty. Unfortunately, those who could reasonably be expected to be most concerned with issues relating to the rule of law – national and European courts – have thus far proven reluctant to second-guess, or even criticise, decisions in the area of risk regulation.

Risk, Regulation and Crisis: Comparing National Responses in Food Safety Regulation

2011 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Lodge
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Print Media ◽  
Cultural Theory ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
Coding System ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
The Us ◽  
Food Safety Regulation

AbstractThe literature on risk regulation often assumes a direct link between public pressure and regulatory responses. This article investigates whether the direction of regulatory response is related to public argumentation as expressed in the national print media. Three approaches are explored: national policy patterns, political panics expressed in Pavlovian politics, and policy responses shaped by universal policy paradigms. It assesses these three approaches in comparative perspective by looking at scandals in food safety regulation in Denmark, Germany and the US, looking at argumentation patterns in the national print media and using a coding system derived from grid-group cultural theory and regulatory responses. While all three countries display mostly hierarchical argumentation patterns, their actual regulatory responses point to diverse patterns.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document