Search

What type of enforcement is the most effective to punish violations of food law or to prevent them from occurring in the first place? This article examines the question of which mix of private and public enforcement exists in European Union (EU) food law and whether this mix corresponds to the recommendations of existing social science research. Based on this research, we contend that EU-determined enforcement mechanisms differ in effectiveness across Member States. New technologies have the potential to stimulate a novel mix of public and private enforcement tools at the EU and national levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores Taiwan is standing in the midst of the global novel coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. At the time of this writing, in Taiwan, 267 people (227 imported and 40 indigenous cases) are infected with this severe acute respiratory syndrome and 2 people have died. The entire country is bracing not only for the public health challenges posed by the outbreak that respects no boundaries, but also for the social, economic and political ramifications.

In July 2018 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that organisms obtained from most New Plant Breeding Technologies (NPBT) fulfil the requirements of the GMO definition of Directive 2001/18. Practically, organisms created with NPBT have since been legally treated as GMOs. While we do not seek to contest the judgment in itself, in the present contribution we draw attention to the effects of such a categorisation from the perspective of communication science. Extrapolating from communication research conducted in adjacent technology domains, we will argue that by putting organisms obtained from NPBT semantically in the same basket as GMOs may carry a serious risk - transferring analogous communication problems that GMOs encountered in the past, to organisms obtained from NPBT, while they may not address similar risks. Possible consequences such as these can hardly be considered at the stage of legal interpretation (such as with the CJEU). Rather, as discussion now unfolds whether and how to change the legal definition, insights from communication science and risk perception research on the effect of such a definition should be taken into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report examines the pending Proposal for a directive on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the food supply chain, and its proposed amendments. It provides a general overview of the current content of the Proposal and analyses the proposed rules from a legal perspective. We find that: (1) the CAP legal basis may prove insufficient for regulation that covers the entire agri-food chain; and may (2) result in a strained relationship with the competition and consumer acquis; (3) the empirical basis for the prevalence of unfair trading practices, and the effect of their prohibition is relatively dire, which results in uncertainty with regard to the achievement of the future UTPD's intended effect and effectiveness; (4) the choice for specific targeted prohibitions instead of general umbrella clauses may lead to ad hoc regulation that leaves large loopholes; (5) the institutional enforcement mechanism makes it likely that the Proposal contributes to the foundation for a new area of EU law, which will increasingly regulate practices in business-to-business relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the court case "James Elliott Construction Ltd v Irish Asphalt Ltd" examining the impact of the judgment in the case on access to justice, European Union (EU) private law and transnational contract law construction, and liability of standardization organizations. Court concludes that standards have a public legal impact in spite of the fact that proof of compliance can be validated by other means than compliance with the EU standard.

When determining the Appropriate Level of Protection (ALOP) in food safety law, developed countries rely on the Food Safety Objective (FSO) to meet the requirements of World Trade Organization (WTO) law and to provide a high level of protection based on insights from food safety science. Implementing an FSO/ALOP is resource-intensive and costly. Developing countries who would like to provide similar levels of protection are restricted by limited resources and often face difficulties implementing such an FSO-based ALOP. As a consequence, developing countries may base their ALOP on other legally acceptable reasons, which are non-scientific and less effective. We illustrate a less resource-intensive way to implement the FSO in the ALOP, which enables developing countries to design an ALOP that is based on food safety science. Depending on the resources available in the respective country, we map different possibilities to determine a science-based FSO/ALOP concept for developing countries, which also takes into account the requirements of WTO law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ageless question regarding the interpretation of the average consumer benchmark at EU level recently gained momentum. The Court of Justice of the European Union has de facto deviated in a judgment from a strict application of the formula of the “reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect” consumer established in Gut Springenheide. This report investigates the possible implications of this judgment on the implementation of behavioural sciences in the “average consumer” benchmark. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In order to better understand the effects of risk communication on regulatory preferences, and vice versa, it is necessary to think beyond the objective/perceived distinction that is often made in risk studies, policies and practices. As an alternative we introduce the concept of risk hybrid, which can be the result of communications of objectified risks and perceived risks. Risk communication, we argue, is not just a representation of the calculated or perceived risks in risk assessment, which subsequently informs risk regulation processes. Instead, it often contributes to the construction of risk conceptualizations and objects in risk assessment and risk management, which in turn are part of larger discourses that enable and constrain regulatory action. We propose the concept of performativity as an explanatory mechanism to analyse the relation between risk communication and risk regulation. We show how performativity can explain the entanglements between risk communication and risk regulation, and close by pointing out implications for understanding and coordinating risk regulation practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the impact of Better Regulation Strategy (BRS) of the European Commission. Topics discussed include BRS being Commission's guideline for assessing legislation, working of BRS on regulatory impact assessment (RIA) through cost-benefit analysis (CBA), initiative of the World Bank to include into policy's behavioral insights in responsive regulation form, need of 2015's New Better Regulation Strategy (NBRS) to acknowledge its work under law of European Union (EU).

Courts in Europe increasingly acknowledge an individual right to emission reduction against states. Such a right forms a new policy tool that can be used to enforce emission reduction. It can also be used to enforce scientifically sound environmental policy, as Courts recognise science as a default position when determining the content of the right. The individual right to emission reduction is another tool in the making to consider when implementing scientific insights into policy making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]