Risk Assessment in the European Food Safety Regulation: Who is to Decide Whose Science is Better? Commission v. France and Beyond…

2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. 1259-1274 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karolina Szawlowska
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
The Other ◽  
Spongiform Encephalopathy ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Remedial Actions ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

The outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (hereinafter BSE) in Europe has brought about serious tensions and fears – not only among consumers, but also among the national and European authorities responsible for risk management. Faced with the incapacity of the existing system to control the situation, on the one hand, and the need to restore consumers’ confidence on the other, the EU and national regulators felt obliged to repair the weaknesses as soon as possible. However, remedial actions undertaken at the time of the BSE crisis were not always the product of thorough consultations and they were often not well coordinated. Thus, they became a source of disagreement among the various actors in play. The case Commission v. France, which I will examine more closely in this paper, illustrates such a conflict among the national and European scientific authorities. The judgment was delivered in 2001, but the problem of the successful integration of science into the regulatory decision-making process of the EU still remains unsettled. In this paper I will present suggestions as to how the situation could be influenced by the outcomes of recent reforms of European food safety law and the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority.

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.

The Factor Structure of Medical Tourist Satisfaction: Exploring Key Drivers of Choice, Delight, and Frustration

2021 ◽  
pp. 109634802098727
Author(s):  
Josip Mikulić ◽  
Damir Krešić ◽  
Maja Šerić
Keyword(s):  
Medical Tourism ◽  
The Other ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Tourist Satisfaction ◽  
Tourism Experience ◽  
Key Drivers ◽  
The One ◽  
Medical Tourist ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Three Factor

The current study intends to contribute to a better understanding of the medical tourism experience. In particular, this study uses data from a survey-based study conducted on a sample of 1,209 medical tourists in Croatia. On the one hand, this study aims to explore and shed light on the decision-making process of medical tourists, and, on the other hand, to reveal which elements of both the medical institution and the destination where it is located, have largest potentials to drive medical tourist delight and/or frustration, in accordance with the three-factor theory of customer satisfaction.

The Making of a President: The European Parliament and the Confirmation of Jacques Santer as President of the Commission

1996 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Hix ◽  
Christopher Lord
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
European Elections ◽  
Shared Meanings ◽  
Single European Act ◽  
The One ◽  
Council Of Ministers ◽  
The Eu

THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT AND THE MAASTRICHT TREATY attempted to balance two principles of representation in their redesign of the institutional structures of the European Union: the one, based on the indirect representation of publics through nationally elected governments in the European Council and Council of Ministers; the other, based on the direct representation of publics through a more powerful European Parliament. There is much to be said for this balance, for neither of the two principles can, on its own, be an adequate solution at this stage in the development of the EU. The Council suffers from a non-transparent style of decision-making and is, in the view of many, closer to oligarchic than to democratic politics. On the other hand, the claims of the European Parliament to represent public sentiments on European integration are limited by low voter participation, the second-order nature of European elections and the still Protean nature of what we might call a transnational European demos. The EU lacks a single public arena of political debate, communications and shared meanings; of partisan aggregation and political entrepreneurship; and of high and even acceptance, across issues and member states, that it is European and not national majority views which should count in collective rule-making.

scholarly journals Territoriality Beyond the State: The EU’s Territorial Claims and the Search for Their Legitimacy

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 650-672
Author(s):  
Josef Weinzierl
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Political Community ◽  
The Other ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Level ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The One ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu

AbstractQuite a few recent ECJ judgments touch on various elements of territorial rule. Thereby, they raise the profile of the main question this Article asks: Which territorial claims does the EU make? To provide an answer, the present Article discusses and categorizes the individual elements of territoriality in the EU’s architecture. The influence of EU law on national territorial rule on the one hand and the emergence of territorial governance elements at the European level on the other provide the main pillars of the inquiry. Once combined, these features not only help to improve our understanding of the EU’s distinctly supranational conception of territoriality. What is more, the discussion raises several important legitimacy questions. As a consequence, the Article calls for the development of a theoretical model to evaluate and justify territoriality in a political community beyond the state.

scholarly journals The European Union's policy on human rights and Chinese sovereignism: The case of Xinjiang

2021 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-86
Author(s):  
Dragan Trailovic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The One ◽  
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region ◽  
Rights Issues ◽  
The Eu

The article explores the European Union's approach to human rights issues in China through the processes of bilateral and multilateral dialogue on human rights between the EU and the People's Republic of China, on the one hand. On the other hand, the paper deals with the analysis of the EU's human rights policy in the specific case of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which is examined through normative and political activities of the EU, its institutions and individual member states. Besides, the paper examines China's response to the European Union's human rights approaches, in general, but also when it comes to the specific case of UAR Xinjiang. ?his is done through a review of China's discourse and behaviour within the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue framework, but also at the UN level and within the framework of bilateral relations with individual member states. The paper aims to show whether and how the characteristics of the EU's general approach to human rights in China are reflected in the individual case of Xinjiang. Particular attention shall be given to the differentiation of member states in terms of their approach to human rights issues in China, which is conditioned by the discrepancy between their political values, normative interests and ideational factors, on the one hand, and material factors and economic interests, on the other. Also, the paper aims to show the important features of the different views of the European Union and the Chinese state on the very role of Human Rights Dialogue, as well as their different understandings of the concept of human rights itself. The study concluded that the characteristics of the Union's general approach to human rights in China, as well as the different perceptions of human rights issues between China and the EU, were manifested in the same way in the case of UAR Xinjiang.

scholarly journals National Food Safety Systems in the European Union: A Comparative Survey

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
Elpidoforos S. Soteriades ◽  
Anastasios Philalithis ◽  
Anna Psaroulaki ◽  
Yiannis Tselentis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
European Union ◽  
Food Safety ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Comparative Survey ◽  
Safety Systems ◽  
Central Level ◽  
The Eu

This paper is a comparative survey of the National Food Safety Systems (NFSS) of the European Union (EU) Member-States (MS) and the Central EU level. The main organizational structures of the NFSS, their legal frameworks, their responsibilities, their experiences, and challenges relating to food safety are discussed. Growing concerns about food safety have led the EU itself, its MS and non-EU countries, which are EU trade-partners, to review and modify their food safety systems. Our study suggests that the EU and 22 out of 27 Member States (MS) have reorganized their NFSS by establishing a single food safety authority or a similar organization on the national or central level. In addition, the study analyzes different approaches towards the establishment of such agencies. Areas where marked differences in approaches were seen included the division of responsibilities for risk assessment (RA), risk management (RM), and risk communication (RC). We found that in 12 Member States, all three areas of activity (RA, RM, and RC) are kept together, whereas in 10 Member States, risk management is functionally or institutionally separate from risk assessment and risk communication. No single ideal model for others to follow for the organization of a food safety authority was observed; however, revised NFSS, either in EU member states or at the EU central level, may be more effective from the previous arrangements, because they provide central supervision, give priority to food control programs, and maintain comprehensive risk analysis as part of their activities.

scholarly journals Workers with Cardiac AIMD Exposed to EMF: Methods and Case Studies for Risk Analysis in the Framework of the European Regulations

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (18) ◽  
pp. 9709
Author(s):  
Eugenio Mattei ◽  
Federica Censi ◽  
Giovanni Calcagnini ◽  
Rosaria Falsaperla
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Implantable Defibrillator ◽  
Safety Regulation ◽  
Implantable Medical Devices ◽  
European Regulations ◽  
The Eu

Workers with cardiac active implantable medical devices (AIMD), such as a pacemaker (PM) or an implantable defibrillator (ICD), are considered by the occupational health and safety regulation framework as a particularly sensitive risk group that must be protected against the dangers caused by the interference of electromagnetic field (EMF). In this paper, we first describe the general methodology that shall be followed for the risk assessment of employees with a cardiac AIMD exposed to EMF, according to the EU regulation, and in particular to the EN 50527-2-1:2016 and 50527-2-2:2018 standards. Then, three case studies related to specific EMF sources are presented, to better describe how the initial analysis of the risk assessment can be performed in practice, and to understand if a further specific risk assessment analysis is required or not.

The EU after Brexit

2020 ◽  
pp. 83-109
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fiscal Federalism ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The Other ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Horizons ◽  
The One ◽  
Unanimous Approval ◽  
Amendment Procedure ◽  
The Eu

This chapter focuses on the European Union after Brexit and articulates the case for constitutional reforms. Reforms are necessary to address the substantive and institutional shortcomings that patently emerged in the context of Europe’s old and new crises. Moreover, reforms will be compelled by the exigencies of the post-Covid-19 EU recovery, which pushes the EU towards new horizons in terms of fiscal federalism and democratic governance. As a result, the chapter considers both obstacles and opportunities to reform the EU and make it more effective and legitimate. On the one hand, it underlines the difficulties connected to the EU treaty amendment procedure, owing to the requirement of unanimous approval of any treaty change, and the consequential problem of the veto. On the other hand, it emphasizes the increasing practice by Member States to use intergovernmental agreements outside the EU legal order and stresses that these have set new rules on their entry into force which overcome state veto, suggesting that this is now a precedent to consider.

The “Polemical” Spirit of European Constitutional Law: On the Importance of Conflicts in EU Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1343-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Martinico
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Cautious Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Recently, scholars have argued of the necessity of going beyond “judicial dialogues” and “conflict-and-power” approaches to the analysis of the role of national Constitutional Courts in the Union. On the one hand, there are risks connected to a “too welcoming an approach by national constitutional courts to EU law”; on the other hand, it is possible to criticize both the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and some national Constitutional Courts for other, less cooperative, decisions. I share this cautious approach for many reasons, and primarily because the preliminary ruling mechanism does not exhaust all the possible means of communication between constitutional courts and the CJEU. For instance, what Komárek calls “parallel references” can serve, in some circumstances, as a technique of alternative (or hidden) dialogue, that has favored a sort of “remote dialogue” over the years. My sole point of disagreement with this scholarly position is over the role of conflicts in this scenario. Whilst Komárek seems to confine conflicts to phenomena of mere resistance or to “‘cold’ strategic considerations,” in this work I am going to adopt a much broader idea of conflict, which goes beyond mere “conflicts and power games.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document