Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Problem of Food Waste: A Legal-Economic Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Food Law and Policy

Abstract

This chapter reviews, building on legal-systematic and economic analysis, the origins for food waste vested in food law and states possible remedies. Several causes are identified: a policy of ‘zero-tolerance’, food information requirements, bans on use of hazardous materials, a policy of ‘structural precaution’ and strict top-down plant pest controls. In all of these, uncertainties as to how to behave and what the real risks are seem to play a key role in the early discard of consumable foodstuffs. Solutions can come from technical, legal as well as social sciences. In food law and policy, rule-makers should be more aware of the adverse effects of requirements on businesses that foster food safety. Technical sciences may provide solutions through nano- and it-innovations. From social sciences, it can be learned what factors induce humans to overemphasise risk exposure. Moral issues are connected to possible solutions, especially to certain potentially hazardous new techniques (like nanotechnology) and the acceptability to nudge, channel and restrict free human will and choice to reduce the waste stream.

Dr. H. J. Bremmers is associate professor at the Law & Governance group of the Social Sciences department of Wageningen University. He is lawyer and economist. He publishes and does research at the intersect of food law and economics. Prof. Dr. B.M.J. van der Meulen is professor of Law and Governance at Wageningen University. This contribution builds further on previous publications of the authors in official reports to the Dutch government on food waste, its causes and prevention. Especially in Annex 1 of Verminderen van Voedselverspilling (Transl.: Reduction of Food Waste) by Harry Bremmers, Report/LEI 2011-014, The Hague, the Netherlands, (2011); and Houdbaarheidsdatum: Verspilde moeite (transl. Durability dating: a waste of effort?), section 3.1, by Harry Bremmers and Bernd van der Meulen, Wageningen UR Food & Biobased Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands (2012).

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    FAO (1981), cited in Parfitt et al. (2010), note 3. For the purpose of the EU waste Directive 2008/98/EC ‘waste’ has as definition: any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard (Article 3 point 1. of the Directive).

  2. 2.

    For instance including also edible material used as feed for animals or by-products that are not used as human food and/or over-nutrition.

  3. 3.

    Parfitt et al. (2010), pp. 3065–3081.

  4. 4.

    Under the ‘f’ of fuel, the biomass is used for energy. Fire, by contrast, is used to destroy.

  5. 5.

    Vogdlander et al. (2001), pp. 344–355. These f’s are based on the Order of Preferences of EoL Solutions in The Netherlands (‘Ladder of Lansink’); Also: Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste.

  6. 6.

    van der Meulen (2004); Hospes (2008), pp. 246–263; Wernaart (2010).

  7. 7.

    UN News Centre (2014).

  8. 8.

    Future Directions International (2013).

  9. 9.

    Gustavsson et al. (2011).

  10. 10.

    Hall et al. (2009). The major part of freshwater is used to produce food; calculations show that about 25 % of freshwater is used inefficiently due to food waste; Kummu (2012), pp. 477–489; European Commission Joint Research Centre (2010).

  11. 11.

    Communication from the Commission (2010).

  12. 12.

    Wiener and Rogers (2002), pp. 317–349.

  13. 13.

    Fischhoff et al. (1978), pp. 127–152.

  14. 14.

    See on the origin of this concept: Skaburskis (2008), pp. 277–280.

  15. 15.

    Parfitt et al. (2010), pp. 3065–3081.

  16. 16.

    In the EU, the BSE-crisis led to the issue of a White Paper on Food Safety by the European Commission in 2000, which initiated a cascade of European legislation to regain consumer confidence. The main EU law in this respect is the General Food Law (178/2002), which contains principles of food law and food safety, adopts risk analysis including assessment, and installs a rapid alert system for food and feed.

  17. 17.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.

  18. 18.

    Petrum and Sellnow (2010).

  19. 19.

    Knowles and Moody (2007), pp. 43–67 at p. 44.

  20. 20.

    van der Meulen and Bremmers (2006), pp. 74–110; Report available at ec.europa.eu/enterprise/food/index_en.htm. While businesses stated to clearly know their legal obligations, interviews showed that many of them are not aware of the actual rules which apply to them.

  21. 21.

    Clapp (2005), pp. 467–485.

  22. 22.

    Waarts, et al. (2011).

  23. 23.

    The Council of European Communities (1993).

  24. 24.

    Lelieveld and Kenner (2007), pp. S15–S19.

  25. 25.

    This is basically a system that is designed and installed to share information between risk managers in the European Union; it was established in the General Food Law, 2002.

  26. 26.

    Van Boxstael et al. (2013).

  27. 27.

    FAO (2010).

  28. 28.

    See Regulation (EC) 470/2009 Laying down Community procedures for the establishment of residue limits of pharmacologically active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin and the EU Commission’s Implementing Regulation of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin, table 2.; van der Meulen (2009), specifically ch. 5.

  29. 29.

    Buta was medicated for racehorses, which in the EU may enter the meat supply chain as horsemeat, contrary to the situation in the USA.

  30. 30.

    Bennett and Klich (2003), pp. 497–516. This is a major source of border rejections in The Netherlands. The term was initiated in 1962 as a result of a veterinary crisis under turkeys in England, causing disease and death at thousands of animals. The ‘mycotoxin family’ includes a wide range of toxic fungi.

  31. 31.

    See the Guidance Document of the European Commission for Competent Authorities for the Control of Compliance with EU Legislation of Aflatoxin (2010).

  32. 32.

    https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/portal/ accessed Sept. 2014; Whitworth (2014).

  33. 33.

    van der Meulen et al. (2012), pp. 453–473.

  34. 34.

    This stands for: Generally Recognized As Safe.

  35. 35.

    Schoss (2011).

  36. 36.

    In Regulation (EC) 258/97 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients.

  37. 37.

    See the guidance document on Human Consumption to a Significant Degree (n.d.).

  38. 38.

    Like nanotechnology, see Van der Meulen et al. (2014).

  39. 39.

    van der Meulen et al. (2012), pp. 453–473.

  40. 40.

    This can be exemplified with the long-grain rice dispute between the USA and the EU, the EU closing its borders for unauthorised genetically modified rice (2006 and beyond).

  41. 41.

    Grossman (2009), pp. 257–304.

  42. 42.

    Examples are the eradication of oomycetes (causing among others ‘potato disease’) and the improvement of the resilience of field crops against natural impact.

  43. 43.

    Article 14 General Food Law, 178/2002.

  44. 44.

    Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-packaged Foods; Codex Stan 1-1985 (Rev. 1-1991), 4.2.1.4.: Cereals containing gluten; i.e., wheat, rye, barley, oats, spelt or their hybridized strains and products of these; crustaceans and products of these; Eggs and egg products; Fish and fish products; Peanuts, soybeans and products of these; Milk and milk products (lactose included); Tree nuts and nut products; and Sulphite in concentrations of 10 mg/kg or more.

  45. 45.

    The European Parliament and of the Council (2011). Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.

  46. 46.

    Hawkes (2004).

  47. 47.

    Soethoudt et al. (2012), section 3.1, pp. 7–15.

  48. 48.

    Next to this, in certain cases EU law obliges to indicate the date of freezing, while in other jurisdictions (as delineated in the Codex) also a date of manufacture, of packaging and/or the sell-by-date may have to be indicated.

  49. 49.

    In the EU, some exemptions apply; See Annex X to Regulation (EU) 1169/2011.

  50. 50.

    Codex Stan 1-1985 (rev. 1-1991) point 2; similar in Article 2 (2) (r) of Regulation (EU) 1169/2011.

  51. 51.

    In accordance with Article 14(2)-14(5) of Regulation 178/2002.

  52. 52.

    As ‘quality’ and ‘safety’ are completely different categories and almost any food (with some exemptions, like sodium) becomes unsafe in due time.

  53. 53.

    Article 24 of the FIC concerns the minimum durability date, ‘use by’ date and date of freezing. Under par. 1 it is stated: In the case of foods which, from a microbiological point of view, are highly perishable and are therefore likely after a short period to constitute an immediate danger to human health, the date of minimum durability shall be replaced by the ‘use by’ date (italics by authors).

  54. 54.

    If the operator is not established in the Union, the importer into the Union market is responsible. ‘Food business operator’ has to be interpreted broadly, as defined in the General Food Law (EC) 178/2002. ‘Food business’ means any undertaking, whether for profit or not and whether public or private, carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of production, processing and distribution of food.

  55. 55.

    Article 8 (1) of the FIC.

  56. 56.

    Waarts et al. (2011).

  57. 57.

    See Waarts et al. (2011) and Soethoudt et al. (2012) Annex 1 and section 3.1, respectively.

  58. 58.

    Holt (2008), pp. 1–20.

  59. 59.

    Darby and Karni (1973), p. 69.

  60. 60.

    Otsuki et al. (2001), p. 495.

  61. 61.

    The European Parliament and of the Council Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods.

  62. 62.

    As regulated in the Nutrition Labelling and Education Act (1990).

  63. 63.

    USFDA (2012).

  64. 64.

    Article 6 of the NHCR.

  65. 65.

    This is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the tasks and competences of which have been delineated in the GFL.

  66. 66.

    Article 6(1) of the NHCR.

  67. 67.

    Pearson v Shalala, 164 F.3d 650.

  68. 68.

    Lefevre ed. (2009) Appendix 5.

  69. 69.

    Dehnen-Schmutz et al. (2007), pp. 527–534.

  70. 70.

    Lansink (2011), pp. 166–170.

  71. 71.

    Henson and Traill (1993), pp. 152–162.

  72. 72.

    van der Vorst et al. (2007), Hisiao et al. (2006).

  73. 73.

    van Raamsdonk (n.d.).

  74. 74.

    A prohibition of ‘cannibalism’; see Article 11 of Regulation 1069/2009.

  75. 75.

    Article 8 of this Regulation, Annex V.

  76. 76.

    The European Parliament and of the Council Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 laying down health rules as regards animal by-products and derived products not intended for human consumption.

  77. 77.

    See Feigenbaum (1991).

  78. 78.

    Gyrna (1999), Williams et al. (1999).

  79. 79.

    Tobers et al. (1996), pp. 1297–1301. It should be mentioned at this point that not only extra costs are made in manufacturing firms, but also for instance by retailers which lower the shelf time of products to assure safety (see Sect. 24.2).

  80. 80.

    If consumers would have to bear damages themselves they would over-exaggerate the risk and therefore apply margins of safety leading to early discard or recycling of foodstuffs. The social effects would be similar to the ones here elaborated.

  81. 81.

    International Standards Organization system.

  82. 82.

    Hackman and Wageman (1995), pp. 309–342.

  83. 83.

    Holt (2008), pp. 1–20.

  84. 84.

    Global G.A.P. (2014).

  85. 85.

    Busch (2011), pp. 51–75; Fuchs et al. (2011), pp. 353–367; Garcia-Martinez, et al. (2007), pp. 299–314; Havinga (2006), pp. 515–533.

  86. 86.

    For instance as a result of asset-specific investments or binding delivery contracts.

  87. 87.

    In the Netherlands this is governed by the semi-public IKB-scheme (Integrated Chain Governance).

  88. 88.

    McNeil (1998–1999), pp. 90–112. This has led to international trade conflicts, as a ban of added hormones in specifically beef may be considered a barrier to trade.

  89. 89.

    Kasperson et al. (1988), pp. 178–187. See Slovic’s and others’ concept of “social amplification of risk”. Kahnemann (2011); Wiener and Rogers (2002), p. 328. In general and on an individual level, humans value potential losses higher than the same potential gains.

  90. 90.

    Gollier et al. (2000), pp. 229–253. Precaution has found its place more in both jurisdictions, EU and American. Influences can be traced back to the Conference in Rio the Janeiro, the Rio Declaration: “where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. In EU law (Article 7 of the GFL), cost-effectiveness has been supplemented by proportionality.

  91. 91.

    Walker Wilson (2011), p. 120.

References

  • Bennett JW, Klich M (2003) Mycotoxins. Clin Microbiol 16(3):497–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch L (2011) Quasi states? The unexpected rise of private food law. In: van der Meulen B (ed) Private food law. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 51–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapp J (2005) The political economy of food aid in an era of agricultural biotechnology. Glob Gov 11:467–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Council regulation (EEC) No 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community Procedures for contaminants in food

    Google Scholar 

  • Darby M, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J Law Econ 16(1):67–88 at p. 69

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehnen-Schmutz K, Touza J, Perrigs C, Williamson M (2007) A century of the ornamental plant trade and its impact on invasion success. Divers Distrib 13(5):527–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission DG Joint Research Centre (EUR 22284EN) (2010) Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO), 93

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, Communication from the Commission “Europe 2020”. Brussels, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2010) Food loss prevention in perishable crops. FAO Agricultural Bulletin 43

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum A (1991) Total quality control. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichenstein S (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs D, Kalfagianniand A, Havinga T (2011) Actors in private food governance: the legitimacy of retail standards and multi-stakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agric Hum Values 28:353–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Future Directions International. Strategic Analysis Paper. 2013. http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files (accessed Aug 2014)

  • Garcia-Martinez M, Fearne J, Caswell JA, Henson S (2007) Co-regulation as a possible model for food safety governance: opportunities for public-private partnerships. Food Policy 32(3):299–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global G.A.P. (2014) http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en (accessed July 2014)

  • Gollier C, Jullien B, Treich N (2000) Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the ‘precautionary principle’. J Public Econ 75:229–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman M (2009) Protecting health, environment and agriculture: authorisation of genetically modified crops and food in the United States and the European Union. Deakin Law Rev 14(2):257–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidance Document of the European Commission for Competent Authorities for the Control of Compliance with EU Legislation of Aflatoxin. 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U (2011) Global food losses and food waste – extent, causes and prevention. Save Food Congress, Dusseldorf (G)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyrna FM (1999) Quality and costs. In: Juran JM, Godfrey AB (eds) Quality handbook. McGraw Hill, New York, section 8.5

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman JR, Wageman R (1995) Total quality management: empirical, conceptual, and practical issues. Adm Sci Q 40(2):309–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall KD, Guo J, Dore M, Chow C (2009) The progressive increase of food waste in America and its environmental impact. PLoS One 4(11):e7940, Accessed July 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Havinga T (2006) Private regulation of food safety by supermarkets. Law and Policy 28(4):515–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes C (2004) Nutrition labels and health claims: the global regulatory environment. WHO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson S, Traill B (1993) The demand for food safety: market imperfections and the role of government. Food Policy 18(2):152–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Hisiao HI, van der Vorst J, Omta SWF (2006) Logistics outsourcing in food supply chain networks: theory and practices. In: Bijman J (ed) International agri-food chains and networks: management and organisation. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 135–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt A (2008) Alternative liability theory: solving the mystery of who dunnit in foodborne illness cases. J Environ Public Health 1:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Hospes O (2008) Overcoming barriers to the implementation of the right to food. Eur Food Feed Law Rev 4:246–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Consumption to a Significant Degree. http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/novelfood/documents/substantial_equivalence_en.pdf (accessed Sept 2014)

  • Kahnemann D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Farrer, Straus & Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperson RE et al (1988) The social amplification of risk – a conceptual framework. Risk Anal 8(2):178–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles T, Moody R (2007) European food scares and their impact on EU food policy. Br Food J 109(1):43–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kummu M (2012) Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertilizer use. Sci Total Environ 438:477–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lansink AO (2011) Public and private roles in plant health management. Food Policy 36(2):166–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefevre EC (2009) Food labelling – the FDA’s role in the selection of healthy foods. Nova Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lelieveld H, Kenner L (2007) Global harmonization of food regulations and legislation: the global harmonization initiative. Trends Food Sci Technol 18:S15–S19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil DE (1998–1999) First case under WTO’s sanitary and phytosanitary agreement: the European Union’s hormone ban. Va J Int Law 39:90–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Otsuki T, Wilson JS, Sewadeg M (2001) Saving two in a billion: quantifying the trade effect of European food safety standards on African exports. Food Policy 26:495–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parfitt J, Barthel M, McNaughton S (2010) Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philos Trans R Soc 363:3065–3081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrum EL, Sellnow TL (2010) China’s response to the melamine crisis: a case study in actional legitimacy. College of Communications and Information Studies, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoss S (2011) Food safety regulation and border rejections: what is the impact on food waste? Wageningen University, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaburskis A (2008) The origin of “wicked problem”. Plann Theory Pract 9(2):277–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soethoudt H, van der Sluis A, Waarts Y, Tromp S (2012) Expiry date: spilled effort?, Wageningen UR Food & Bio-based Research, pp 7–15, section 3.1 (Law and Guidances of Expiry Dates, Responsibilities at Surpassing Expiry Dates (by Harry Bremmers and Bernd van der Meulen)

  • Tobers T, Buzby JC, Ollinger M (1996) Using benefit and cost information to evaluate a food safety regulation. Am J Agric Econ 78:1297–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN News Centre (2014) UN News Centre. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45165#.U9IPkPmSx8E (accessed July 2014)

  • USFDA (2012) Inspections, compliance, enforcement, and criminal investigations. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2012/ucm340266.htm (accessed 2014)

  • Van Boxstael S, Jacxsens L, Uytendaele M (2013) Fresh produce rejections at EU border inspection posts. New Food Magazine 5. http://www.newfoodmagazine.com/12322/new-food-magazine/past-issues/issue-5-2013/fresh-produce-rejections-at-eu-border-inspection-posts/. Accessed Sept 2014

  • van der Meulen B (2004) The right to adequate food; food law between market and human rights. Elsevier Juridisch

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B (2009) Reconciling food competitiveness. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B, Bremmers H (2006) The overhaul of EU food law as perceived by industry. In: Wijnands JHM, van der Meulen BMJ, Poppe KJ (eds) Competitiveness of the European food industry, LEI, The Hague, pp 74–110, Research report, Ch. 3

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B, Bremmers H, Wijnands J, Poppe K (2012) Structural precaution: the application of premarket approval schemes in EU food legislation. Food Drug Law J 67(4):453–473

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B, Bremmers H, Purnhagen K, Gupta N, Bouwmeester H, Geyer L (2014) Governing nano foods: principles-based responsive regulation. Elsevier Academic Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Vorst J, Duineveld MPJ, Scheer FP, Beulens AJM (2007) Towards logistics orchestration in the pot plant supply chain network. In: 14th annual international Euroma conference, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • van Raamsdonk T (n.d.) ARIES: an expert system supporting legislative tasks: identifying materials using Linnaeus II software. In: Tools for identifying biodiversity: progress and problems, pp 145–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogdlander J, Brezet H, Hendriks C (2001) Allocation in recycling systems – an integrated model for the analyses of environmental impact and market value. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(6):344–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waarts Y, Eppink M, Oosterkamp E, Hiller S, van der Sluis A, Timmermans T (2011) Reduction of food waste: perceived barriers in legislation. LEI

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker Wilson MJ (2011) Cultural understandings of risk and the tyranny of the experts. Oregon Law Rev 19:113–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernaart B (2010) The plural wells of the right to food. In: Hospes O, Hadiprayitno I (eds) Governing food security: law, politics and the right to food. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 43–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitworth J (2014) Pathogenic microorganism notifications jump to an all-time high. http://www.foodqualitynews.com/Industry-news/RASFF-annual-report-reveals-EU-trends (accessed Sept 2014)

  • Wiener JB, Rogers MD (2002) Comparing precautions in the United States and Europe. J Risk Res 5(4):317–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams ART, van der Wiele A, Dale BG (1999) Quality costing: a management review. Int J Manag Rev 1(4):441–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law & Governance Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Harry Bremmers & Bernd van der Meulen

Authors
  1. Harry Bremmers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernd van der Meulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harry Bremmers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Food Law International, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Gabriela Steier

  2. Food Law International, LLP, Washington, DC, USA

    Kiran K. Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bremmers, H., van der Meulen, B. (2016). The Problem of Food Waste: A Legal-Economic Analysis. In: Steier, G., Patel, K. (eds) International Food Law and Policy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07542-6_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07542-6_24

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07541-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07542-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation