Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Organic and Conventional Foods pp 149–165Cite as

The “Honey” Judgment of Bablok and Others Versus Freistaat Bayern in the Court of Justice of the European Union: Implications for Co-existence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Natural Resource Management and Policy ((NRMP,volume 49))

Abstract

This piece analyses the CJEU’s Bablok Case from the perspective of law and economics. It uses doctrinal and economic argumentation to test its effects on international trade as well as on the legal order of the EU. It tests whether these insights live up to the expectations of the lawmaker. Furthermore, it makes policy recommendations how these insights can be used to further policy making in this area at EU level. We proceed in five steps. We will first introduce the background of the case and the regulatory environment, before we turn to describing the facts and findings of the Court. We will subsequently illustrate the changes in the regulatory system triggered by the Court’s judgment, before we turn to a more thorough analysis of the judgment on the EU and the global trade system from a socio-economic perspective. From these findings, we will conclude with concrete policy recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the website of the European Commission, agriculture and rural development, honey, available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/honey/index_en.htm.

  2. 2.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others v Freistaat Bayern [2011] ECR I-7419.

  3. 3.

    Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001.

  4. 4.

    It is a peculiar thing of the EU market, however, that also GMOs produced within the EU require a special authorization just because they are GMOs. Other trading blocs such as the United States of America require authorization in particular for imports of GMOs or when used in special circumstances such as an additive (see Grossman 2012).

  5. 5.

    Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, OJ L 268 of 18.10.2003.

  6. 6.

    This fact is also stressed by the Court in CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, paras 101–102.

  7. 7.

    Directive.

  8. 8.

    Regulation.

  9. 9.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 32.

  10. 10.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 36.

  11. 11.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 37.

  12. 12.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 37.

  13. 13.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 39.

  14. 14.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 47.

  15. 15.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 53.

  16. 16.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 55.

  17. 17.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 55.

  18. 18.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 62.

  19. 19.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, paras 70, 71.

  20. 20.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 80.

  21. 21.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, para 81.

  22. 22.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, paras 82–83.

  23. 23.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, paras 95-101.

  24. 24.

    CJEU, C 442/09, Bablok and Others, paras 101.

  25. 25.

    Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ L 304 of 22.11.2011.

  26. 26.

    ECJ, C-192/96, Wallonie, ECR I-997, I-07411, para 50.

  27. 27.

    ECJ, C-183/95, Affish, ECR I-4362, para 43.

  28. 28.

    Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, 1.

  29. 29.

    See the assessment under 5.

  30. 30.

    Gesetz zur Regelung der Gentechnik.

  31. 31.

    Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch.

  32. 32.

    Decision at Bavarian Court (compensation issues, etc.) judgment of 27. March 2012, Az. 22 BV 11.2175, para 81 ff.

  33. 33.

    BVerwG 7 C 13.12.

  34. 34.

    Directive 2014/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey.

References

  • Alemanno, A. 2011. Bablok: The unbearable lightness of zero tolerance for traces of (authorized) GMO, 7.9.2011. http://albertoalemanno.eu/articles/bablok-the-unbearable-lightness-of-zero-tolerance-for-authorized-gmo.

  • Bonny, S. 2003. Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 6: 50–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, A. 2012. The brussels effect. Northwestern University Law Review 107: 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredahl, Le. 2001. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods—Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy 24: 23–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, M.R. 2012. Genetically modified crops and their products in the United States: A review of the regulatory system. In Jahrbuch des agrarrechts, ed. J. Martìnez, 69–95. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hagenmeyer, M. 2011. ECJ ignores EU law in Honey/Pollen case. European Food and Feed Law Review 5: 293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamping, M. 2012. Shackles for bees? The ECJ’s judgment on GMO-contaminated honey. European Journal of Risk Regulation 1: 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. 2008. EU regulation of GMOs: Law and decision making for a new technology 3–4. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, S., and T. Gray. 2006. The so-called “moratorium” on the licensing of new genetically modified (GM) products by the European Union 1998–2004: a study in ambiguity. Environmental Politics 15: 592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poli, S. 2013. The member states’ long and winding road to partial regulatory autonomy in cultivating genetically modified crops in the EU. European Journal of Risk Regulation 2: 145–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, M., and G. Shaffer. 2009. When cooperation fails—The international law and politics of genetically modified foods, 53–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Purnhagen, K. 2013. Beyond threats to health: May consumers’ interest in safety trump fundamental freedoms in information on foodstuffs? Reflections on Berger v Freistaat Bayern. European Law Review 38: 711–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnhagen, K. 2014. The behavioural law and economics of the precautionary principle in the EU and its impact on internal market regulation. In Special Issue “Behavioural Economics, Environmental Policy and the Consumer”, eds. C. Sunstein and L. Reisch, Journal of Consumer Policy 453–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnhagen, K. 2015. Why do we need responsive regulation and behavioural research in EU internal market law? In European perspectives on behavioural law and economics, ed. K. Mathis. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnhagen, K. 2015b. The EU’s precautionary principle in food law is an information tool! European Business Law Review 26: 903–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szajkowska, A. 2010. The impact of the definition of the precautionary principle in EU food law. Common Market Law Review 47: 173–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen, B., H. Bremmers, K. Purnhagen, N. Gupta, H. Bouwmeester, and L. Geyer. 2014. Governing nano foods. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wesseler, J., and N. Kalaitzandonakes. 2011. Present and Future EU GMO policy. In EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas, 2nd ed, ed. A. Oskam, G. Meesters, and H. Silvis. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands

    Kai Purnhagen & Justus Wesseler

Authors
  1. Kai Purnhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justus Wesseler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Purnhagen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

    Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes

  2. Grad Sch Public Policy, Univ Saskatchewan, Johnson-Shoyama Grad Sch Public Policy, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

    Peter W.B. Phillips

  3. Technische Universität München , Freising, Bayern, Germany

    Justus Wesseler

  4. University of Saskatchewan , Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

    Stuart J. Smyth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Purnhagen, K., Wesseler, J. (2016). The “Honey” Judgment of Bablok and Others Versus Freistaat Bayern in the Court of Justice of the European Union: Implications for Co-existence. In: Kalaitzandonakes, N., Phillips, P., Wesseler, J., Smyth, S. (eds) The Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Organic and Conventional Foods. Natural Resource Management and Policy, vol 49. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3727-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3727-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3725-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-3727-1

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation