Search

According to the definition adopted in the European Union, novel foods are foods that were not consumed to a significant degree within the Union before May 15, 1997. This includes cultivated meat and insects. Novel foods are meant to play a critical role in the transition towards sustainable food systems. However, their success depends on whether and to what extent they will be incorporated into the diets at the population level. This review investigates consumers' perception of novel food products by narratively synthesising results on the influence of heuristics and biases triggered by emotions, personality traits, and socio-cultural factors. Empirical studies conducted in Western countries and published in English after 1997 were eligible, which led to 182 studies being included. Notably, most included studies focused on insects and cultivated meat. Disgust and fear are shown to be the main emotions driving rejection of novel foods, together with food neophobia and specific cultural norms common across countries included in the scope of the review. Familiarity with novel foods and curiosity both led to higher acceptance. Despite being investigated directly in a minority of studies, heuristics and related biases mostly fell under the "affect," the "natural-is-better," and the "trust" heuristics. The review also discusses to what extent consumers' perception reflects in the regulatory framework applicable to novel foods in the European Union, how it influences the regulation of insects and cultivated meat and which lessons can be drawn for the future of the regulatory framework., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest associated with this manuscript. We affirm that there are no financial, personal, or professional interests that could be perceived as affecting the objectivity, integrity, or impartiality of the research., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Which option for regulating plants derived from new genomic techniques in European Union law is feasible and justifiable scientifically? The European Commission has proposed a new regulation on plants obtained by specific new genomic techniques, which is now subject to discussion in the legislative process. From the perspective of the European Commission's envisaged legal reforms of European Union law towards the integration of greater sustainability, we conclude that the option focusing on plant traits delivering sustainability benefits should be chosen, which is most fitting to facilitate a contribution to climate action, the transition towards climate neutrality, and promptly integrate sustainability into all food-related policies. To assist the decision-making in the legislative process, we outline six regulatory options resulting from regulatory research involving interdisciplinary teams., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

The European Commission's Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, under the European Green Deal, acknowledges that innovative techniques, including biotechnology, may play a role in increasing sustainability. At the same time, organic farming will be promoted, and at least 25% of the EU's agricultural land shall be under organic farming by 2030. How can both biotechnology and organic farming be developed and promoted simultaneously to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? We illustrate that achieving the SDGs benefits from the inclusion of recent innovations in biotechnology in organic farming. This requires a change in the law. Otherwise, the planned increase of organic production in the F2F strategy may result in less sustainable, not more sustainable, food systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests L.F. is a Non-Executive Director of the Board of Directors of Syngenta. The other authors have no interests to declare., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organism (GMO) regulatory framework, make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and lay the groundwork for international coherence. In this third of three articles, we focus on labeling and coexistence as well as discuss the political reality and potential ways forward., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Here, we discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organism (GMO) regulatory framework, to make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and to lay the groundwork for international coherence. We discussed the scope and definitions in a previous article and, thus, here we focus on the procedures for risk assessment and risk management., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

We discuss options to reform the EU genetically modified organisms (GMO) regulatory framework, make risk assessment and decision-making more consistent with scientific principles, and lay the groundwork for international coherence. The first in a three-part series, this article focuses on reform options related to the scope of the legislation and the GMO definition., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

New plant-breeding technologies (NPBTs), including gene editing, are widely used and drive the development of new crops. However, these new technologies are disputed, creating uncertainty in how their application for agricultural and food uses will be regulated. While in North America regulatory systems respond with a differentiated approach to NPBTs, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) has in effect made most if not all NPBT subject to the same regulatory regime as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This paper discusses from a law and economics point of view different options that are available for the EU's multi-level legal order. Using an ex-ante regulation versus ex-post liability framework allows the economic implications of different options to be addressed. The results show that under current conditions, some options are more expensive than others. The least costly option encompasses regulating new crops derived from NPBTs similar to those used in 'conventional' breeding. The current regulatory situation in the EU, namely making the use of NPBTs subject to the same conditions as GMOs, is the most costly option. © 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry., (© 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.)

A special regulatory regime applies to products of recombinant nucleic acid modifications. A ruling from the European Court of Justice has interpreted this regulatory regime in a way that it also applies to emerging mutagenesis techniques. Elsewhere regulatory progress is also ongoing. In 2015, Argentina launched a regulatory framework, followed by Chile in 2017 and recently Brazil and Colombia. In March 2018, the USDA announced that it will not regulate genome-edited plants differently if they could have also been developed through traditional breeding. Canada has an altogether different approach with their Plants with Novel Traits regulations. Australia is currently reviewing its Gene Technology Act. This article illustrates the deviation of the European Union's (EU's) approach from the one of most of the other countries studied here. Whereas the EU does not implement a case-by-case approach, this approach is taken by several other jurisdictions. Also, the EU court ruling adheres to a process-based approach while most other countries have a stronger emphasis on the regulation of the resulting product. It is concluded that, unless a functioning identity preservation system for products of directed mutagenesis can be established, the deviation results in a risk of asynchronous approvals and disruptions in international trade., (© 2018 The Authors. New Phytologist © 2018 New Phytologist Trust.)

The EU has been implementing strict food laws and regulations that de facto constrain exports from Indonesia, particularly regarding agricultural products. This study uses the comparative law method and the FSO/ALOP framework to analyze how to design better strategies for Indonesia when dealing with the more stringent food laws and regulations of the EU, particularly in the case of shrimp and nutmeg. This study proposes that the choice of strategy should depend on the nature of the hazard, the existing national food control system, and the availability of the relevant international standard.

Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk-based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano-specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology., (© 2017 Society for Risk Analysis.)