Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science Based Governance? EU Food Regulation Submitted to Risk Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Networked Governance, Transnational Business and the Law

Abstract

Anna Szajkowska and Bernd van der Meulen analyse in their contribution, Science Based Governance? EU Food Regulation Submitted to Risk Analysis, the scope of application of risk analysis and the precautionary principle in EU food safety regulation. To what extent does this technocratic, science-based methodology set limitations on the legislator in deciding on food safety measures that restrict trade? Can factors other than science be taken into account in food safety regulation? Are EU food safety measures ‘legal’ under international trade obligations?

The content of this chapter does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    OJ 2002, L 31/1.

  2. 2.

    Fisher (2007).

  3. 3.

    Most important statutes include, e.g., the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Food Quality Protection Act; or the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

  4. 4.

    Türk (2006).

  5. 5.

    Börzel and Heard-Lauréote (2009).

  6. 6.

    March and Olsen (1989).

  7. 7.

    Lafond (2001); Szajkowska (2009); Ugland and Veggeland (2006).

  8. 8.

    OJ 2000, L 109/29.

  9. 9.

    OJ 2000, L 197/19.

  10. 10.

    OJ 2003, L 268/1.

  11. 11.

    Palau (2009).

  12. 12.

    See Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (‘Cassis de Dijon’), [1979] ECR 649; or Case 178/84, Commission v. Germany (‘Reinheitsgebot’), [1987] ECR 1227.

  13. 13.

    UNRISD (2004).

  14. 14.

    Art. 3.2 SPS stipulates: ‘Sanitary or phytosanitary measures which conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions of this Agreement and of GATT 1994’.

  15. 15.

    van der Meulen (2010a).

  16. 16.

    Szajkowska (2010).

  17. 17.

    Although not discussed in much detail here, risk communication is also an important element of risk analysis, which consists in the interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process as regards hazards and risks, risk related factors and risk perceptions, among scientists, risk managers, consumers, businesses, and all other interested parties.

  18. 18.

    Cf. van der Meulen (2010b).

  19. 19.

    Belvèze (2003).

  20. 20.

    Skogstad (2011).

  21. 21.

    OJ 1997, L 43/1.

  22. 22.

    EFSA (2008).

  23. 23.

    European Parliament (2011).

  24. 24.

    WTO Appellate Body Report, Japan—Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999 (Japan—Agricultural Products II), para. 89.

  25. 25.

    Allio et al. (2006); CAC (1999); Wiener and Rogers (2002).

  26. 26.

    EC (2000), p. 13.

  27. 27.

    CAC (2007), para. 28.

  28. 28.

    CAC (2011).

  29. 29.

    CAC (2007), para. 12.

  30. 30.

    OJ 1962, 115/2645.

  31. 31.

    Brookes (2007).

  32. 32.

    EC (2008).

  33. 33.

    van der Meulen (2009).

  34. 34.

    Levidow et al. (2005).

  35. 35.

    EC (2000), p. 21.

  36. 36.

    de Sadeleer (2002); de Sadeleer (2010).

  37. 37.

    EC (2000), p. 8.

  38. 38.

    Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council, [2002] ECR II-3305, para. 119 and case-law referred to therein.

  39. 39.

    Joint Cases T-254/00, T-270/00 and T-277/00, Hotel Cipriani SpA and Others v. Commission, [2008] ECR II-3269, para. 292.

  40. 40.

    See e.g. for prior authorisation schemes for plant protection products, Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços Lda, [2010] ECR I-13533.

  41. 41.

    See Case 174/82, Sandoz, [1983] ECR 2445; Case 192/01, Commission v. Denmark, [2003] ECR I-9693; Case 95/01, John Greeham and Léonard Abel, [2004] ECR I-1333; Case C-24/00, Commission v. France, [2004] ECR I-1277; Case 41/02, Commission v. Netherlands, [2004] ECR I-11373; Case 270/02, Commission v. Italy, [2004] ECR I-1559.

  42. 42.

    Case 41/02, Commission v. Netherlands, supra note 41, paras 22–23.

  43. 43.

    Case 333/08, Commission v. France, [2010] ECR I-757.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para. 59.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., para. 103.

  46. 46.

    Case 174/82, Sandoz, supra note 41, at 22; see also Case C-333/08, Commission v. France, supra note 43.

  47. 47.

    See Case C-192/01, Commission v. Denmark, supra note 41.

  48. 48.

    Case C-331/88, Fedesa, [1990] ECR I-4023.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para. 9.

  50. 50.

    van der Meulen (2006a, b).

  51. 51.

    COM (2007) 872 final.

  52. 52.

    SEC (2008), p. 12.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    EFSA (2010).

  55. 55.

    SEC (2008), p. 4.

  56. 56.

    Annex A(1) SPS Agreement.

  57. 57.

    This conclusion was reached in WTO Reports of the Panels, European Communities—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R; WT/DS292/R; WT/DS293/R, adopted 29 September 2006, para. 7.427.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., para. 7.424.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., para. 7.1491.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., paras 1525–1526. Until April 2004, the scope of the NFR included GM foods.

  61. 61.

    See Communication from Peru to the SPS Committee on the implementation of Regulation No. 258/97 concerning novel foods. G/SPS/GEN/1218 (7 March 2013). Peru upholds that ‘[t]he Regulation and its implementation constitute an unwarranted barrier to international trade in traditional Peruvian products deriving from country’s biodiversity, owing to the high cost of preparing the request dossier for a particular form of a specific product (due to the scientific studies required) and the amount of time needed to approve a product’s entry into the European market’.

  62. 62.

    G/SPS/GEN/681 (5 April 2006).

  63. 63.

    G/SPS/GEN/713 (12 July 2006). The trade concerns regarding Reg. 258/97 were raised again in 2011, after the EU institutions failed to agree on the revision of the Regulation. See G/SPS/GEN/1087 (7 June 2011).

  64. 64.

    WTO Appellate Body Report, EC—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, WT/DS26/AB/R; WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998 (EC-Hormones), para. 123.

  65. 65.

    The final recital of Dec. 94/800/EC concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986–1994) explicitly denies the direct applicability of WTO rules (OJ 2004, L 336/1).

  66. 66.

    Griller (2000); Mendez (2004); Snyder (2003); Zonnekeyn (2004).

  67. 67.

    Case C-69/89, Nakajima All Precision Co. Ltd v. Council, [1991] ECR-2069, para. 31.

  68. 68.

    Case 70/87, Fédération de l’industrie de l’huilerie de la CEE (Fediol) v. Commission, [1989] ECR 1781, paras 19–22.

  69. 69.

    Zonnekeyn (2001).

  70. 70.

    Reg. 852/2004, OJ 2004, L 226/3.

References

  • Allio L, Ballantine B, Meads R (2006) Enhancing the role of science in the decision-making of the European Union. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 44:4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belvèze H (2003) Le principe de précaution et ses implications juridiques dans le domaine de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments. Rev Sci Tech/Office International des Epizooties 22:387–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Börzel TA, Heard-Lauréote K (2009) Networks in EU multi-level governance: concepts and contributions. J Public Policy 29:135–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes G (2007) Economic impact assessment of the way in which the EU novel foods regulatory approval procedures affect the EU food sector. Briefing paper. For the Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the European Union (CIAA) and the Platform for Ingredients in Europe (PIE)

    Google Scholar 

  • Codex Alimentarius Commission (1999) Report of the fourteenth session of the codex committee on general principles, Paris, 19–23 April 1999. FAO/WHO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Codex Alimentarius Commission (2007) Working principles for risk analysis for food safety for application by governments (CAC/GL 62-2007). FAO/WHO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Codex Alimentarius Commission (2011) Procedural manual, 20th edn. FAO/WHO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • de Sadeleer N (2002) Environmental principles: from political slogans to legal rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Sadeleer N (2010) Environnement et marché intérieur. Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2008) Scientific opinion of the scientific committee: food safety, animal health and welfare and environmental impact of animals derived from cloning by Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer (SCNT) and their offspring and products obtained from those animals. EFSA J 767:1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • EFSA (2010) EFSA scientific colloquium 13, Summary Report what’s new on novel foods, Amsterdam, 19–20 November 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament (2011) Novel foods talks collapse on council refusal to label clone-derived products (press release, 29 March 2011). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdfs/news/expert/infopress/20110328IPR16525/20110328IPR16525_en.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013

  • European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. European Commission COM (2000) 1, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods. European Commission COM (2007) 872 final, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2008) Draft report on impact assessment for a regulation replacing regulation (EC) No 258/97 on novel foods and novel food ingredients. European Commission SEC(2008) 12, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher E (2007) Risk regulation and administrative constitutionalism. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Griller S (2000) Judicial enforceability of WTO Law in the European Union. Annotation to Case C-149/96, Portugal v. Council. J Int Econ Law 3:441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafond FD (2001) The creation of the European Food Authority. Institutional implications of risk regulation. Eur Issues 10:1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow L, Carr S, Wield D (2005) European Union Regulation of agri-biotechnology: precautionary links between science, expertise and policy. Sci Public Policy 32:261–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Olsen JP (1989) Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendez M (2004) The impact of WTO rulings in the community legal order. Eur Law Rev 29:517–529

    Google Scholar 

  • Palau A (2009) The Europeanization of the Spanish food safety policy: framing and institutional change and its relation to European soft law. Paper presented at the 5th ECPR general conference, Potsdam, 10–12 September 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Skogstad G (2011) Legitimacy and/or policy effectiveness? Network governance and GMO regulation in the European Union. J Eur Public Policy 10:321–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder F (2003) The gatekeepers: the European Courts and WTO law. Common Mark Law Rev 40:313–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Szajkowska A (2009) From mutual recognition to mutual scientific opinion? Constitutional framework for risk analysis in EU food safety law. Food Policy 34:529–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szajkowska A (2010) The impact of the definition of the precautionary principle in EU food law. Common Mark Law Rev 47:173–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Türk AH (2006) The concept of legislation in European community law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Ugland T, Veggeland F (2006) Experiments in food safety policy integration in the European Union. J Common Mark Stud 44:607–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNRISD (2004) Technocratic policy making and democratic accountability. UNRISD Research and Policy Brief 3

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B (2006a) Haalt de Warenwet 2007? Deel I implementatie van EG Verordeningen. J Warenwet 7:6–14

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B (2006b) Haalt de Warenwet 2007? Episode II implementatie van Verordening 178/2002. J Warenwet 7:6–15

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B (2009) Reconciling food law to competitiveness: report on the regulatory environment of the European food and dairy sector. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B (2010a) The global arena of food law: emerging contours of a meta-framework. Erasmus Law Rev 3:217–240

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen B (2010b) The function of food law. On objectives of food law, legitimate factors and interests taken into account. Eur Food Feed Law Rev 2:83–91

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zonnekeyn G (2001) The latest on indirect effect of WTO law in the EC legal order. The Nakajima case law misjudged? J Int Econ Law 4:597–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zonnekeyn G (2004) EC liability for non-implementation of WTO dispute settlement decisions - are the dice cast? J Int Econ Law 7:483–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium

    Anna Szajkowska

  2. Law and Governance Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Bernd M. J. van der Meulen

Authors
  1. Anna Szajkowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernd M. J. van der Meulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Szajkowska .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Mark Fenwick

  2. Graduate School of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Steven Van Uytsel

  3. Graduate School of Law, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    Stefan Wrbka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szajkowska, A., van der Meulen, B.M.J. (2014). Science Based Governance? EU Food Regulation Submitted to Risk Analysis. In: Fenwick, M., Van Uytsel, S., Wrbka, S. (eds) Networked Governance, Transnational Business and the Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41212-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation