Beyond Food Safety – EU Food Information Standards as a Facilitator of Political Consumerism and International Law Enforcement Mechanism

How should products produced in occupied territories be labelled for export? In recent years, Courts in the UK and Canada addressed this technical yet politically-charged question, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. More recently, the Court of Justice of the EU was asked to determine the mandatory requirements under EU consumer law of indication of origin of products produced in settlements situated in territories occupied by the State of Israel, namely the Golan Heights, theWest Bank and East Jerusalem. In Organisation juive européenne the Court of Justice established that although EU consumer law refers to the need to supply information regarding the country of origin or the place of provenance, those provisions should be interpreted as requiring that foodstuffs originating in an occupied territory must bear not only the indication of that territory but also the indication of that provenance (i.e. indication that it comes from an ‘Israeli settlement’). In imposing broad labelling requirements, the Court heavily relied on both the notion of ‘ethical considerations’ under EU consumer law and on international law, boldly addressing some of the contentious legal and political issues at stake. In adopting this approach, the Court contributed to the harmonious reading of EU consumer law and public international law. Yet its heavy reliance on public international law should be contrasted with its failure to rely on international trade law, a neglect that contributed to selective and discriminatory treatment of Israeli settlement products. Moreover, in imposing broad labelling requirements, the Court shifted its focus from the EU and its Member States to the ultimate EU consumers, thereby advancing the private enforcement of international law in lieu of public enforcement. settlement products; interface between public international law and international trade law, EU-Israel relations

In Germany, different voluntary labelling schemes are in place to describe the origin of dairy products covering varying degrees of binding conditions, for example, brands with geographical information privately defined combined with relatively vague obligations, private label initiatives (e.g., Regionalfenster)1 In contrast to other products, like most meats, fruit and vegetables, provision of information on the country of origin or place of provenance is not mandatory for milk and milk as an ingredient. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers identifies the need to explore the possibility to extend mandatory origin labelling for selected foodstuff categories, i.e. dairy. Thus the EU issued a study aiming to evaluate cost and benefits of introducing a mandatory country of origin labelling (MCOOL) for dairy products (EU Commission, 2015). The study intended to analyse a range of issues covering the need of consumers to be informed, the feasibility of providing mandatory indication of the country of origin or place of provenance, and, an analysis of the measures’ economic implications, including the aspects concerning the common market and likely impacts on international trade.

This book provides a panorama of EU food law and legislation. It covers European Integration and Food Law (Part I); Food Safety Umbrella Laws: The General Food Law Regulation and the Official Controls Regulation (Part II); The Food Law Acquis (Parts III–VII), which comprises food technology law, food safety law, food information law, food quality law, food nutrition law; international food law (Part VIII) and a final chapter that presents the conclusions and an outlook on the future of food law. The book demonstrates that EU food law is currently predominantly food-safety oriented, and outlines initiatives and opportunities for a future of food law that is more oriented towards aspects of sustainability, health, and integrated food system regulation.

The paper discusses the measures taken by the EU in order to address the problems of the euro crisis. The focus is on the Stability and Growth Pact. Then, it explores the impact of these measures on EU internal market law, the European competition rules and the national welfare states. It is argued that a comprehensive EU approach to European economic law and the national welfare states is emerging.

The chapter analyses the gradual evolution in EU food law, turning to food and feed safety protection following the serious food crises of the 1990s. The comprehensive, integrated principles underlying the 1993 Green Paper and 2000 White Paper became a reality with Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, which ascribes a crucial role to consumer protection, setting forth the principles of transparency, traceability, and responsibility of business operators; establishing a rapid alert system and crisis management plan; and, most importantly, establishing the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA provides scientific opinions and scientific and technical assistance, establishes surveillance procedures, promotes cooperation among food safety organisations, and plays a crucial role in risk assessment and communication. EFSA’s first 10 years of activity has achieved a positive balance: despite the dramatic changes within the EU, it has successfully adapted itself. The need for the harmonisation of food hygiene requirements led to the adoption of the hygiene package and the HACCP system (Reg. 852/2004), as well as of specific hygiene rules applicable to products of animal origin (Reg. 853/2004). The conclusions drawn are encouraging: EU food law, by adopting harmonised vertical rules and regulations common to all operators, has committed to ensuring common, high quality standards. EU authorities’ capacity to promptly and effectively react to significant food crises has led to one of the most developed systems worldwide, one that is functional for operators and safe for consumers. Yet the need for rapid, repeated actions, is a constant challenge, which certainly cannot be considered complete.

In the food business the position of legal experts is sometimes a lonely one: they are the ones who know the ‘rules of the game’ and speak truth to power. And this expertise is not always received with great enthusiasm by other professionals. Sometimes, frankly, law is perceived to ‘stand in the way’ of business developments. Nevertheless, proper knowledge of food law can also prevent a lot of harm, and safeguard against damage or unnecessary expenses. In this chapter we offer a brief introduction to law in general, and European food law in particular. After all, in the European Union the most important legislation on food is produced by the European legislature, and to a lesser extent the lawmakers of the Member States. We will introduce the framework regulation that is at the core of all this: the General Food Law and its most important features, definitions and procedures, as well as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that provides the scientific substantiation for EU food law and policy. In this context, we reflect on the legal meaning of key concepts as ‘food’, ‘unsafe food’, ‘informed consumer choice’ and ‘food business responsibilities’. Furthermore, we will discuss important issues that relate to food production and sales from a legal perspective: among other things, we will address the questions ‘what ingredients can be used?’; ‘what product benefits can be claimed?’; ‘how should business processes be organised?’; ‘what is to be done when food does not meet food safety requirements?’; and ‘how can food law be enforced?’ Then, we will focus on legal methodology: what are the most important sources of EU food law, and how can they be used? Finally, we will look ahead and discuss future challenges in the field of EU food law, and draw conclusions. Among other things, climate change is considered to be one of the most complex challenges that lie ahead, especially in the context of food security, and it needs to be addressed as urgently as possible. These developments will probably lead to dramatic changes in food law as well.

유럽연합 27개 회원국은 1996년 당시 영국에서 시작된 광우병(BSE)파동을 겪은 후 식품안전 관리체계를 유럽차원에서 일원화하기 시작하였다. 이러한 과정에서 ‘식품의 안전에 관한 백서’와 이를 기본으로 하여 제정된 ‘식품안전에 관한 유럽공동체규칙 178/2002/EU은 유럽식품법의 내용적 토대가 되고 있다. EU식품법은 회원국이 자국에서 수행하던 식품안전과 같은 역할을 부분적으로 대신 수행하게 되었다. 여기서 EU의 식품법이 우리나라에 주는 시사점은 ‘농장에서 식탁까지’라는 모토아래 식품의 생산, 가공, 유통, 소비의 전 과정을 통일적으로 관리하겠다는 정책을 수립하고 있는 점이다. 독일도 기존에 산재해 있던 식품관련 법률을 독일의 식품ㆍ생활필수품ㆍ사료법(LFGB)으로 대체했다. 이 법은 독일식품 위생관리 방면에서 가장 중요한 기본 법률로서 연방법(Bundesrecht)이며 식품안전과 관련한 사안을 포괄하는 종합법으로서 식품안전 관리 “법전”(Gesetzbuch)의 형태를 보이고 기타 특정 식품위생 법률과 법규제정의 기준이 되고 있다. 이에 우리도 ‘식품위생법’이나 ‘식품안전기본법’을 위주로 법률을 정비할 필요성에 대해서 고민할 필요가 있다. 독일에서도 2000년 11월 광우병에 감염된 쇠고기가 발견됨으로 인해 건강한 먹거리에 관한 광범위한 공론화가 있었다. 그리고 이후 독일의 식품안전 관리가 그동안 연방보건부(BMG)와 연방식품농업부(BMEL)로 나뉘어 있던 것이 연방식품농업부(BMEL)로 통합관리하기 시작했다는 점을 눈여겨 볼 필요가 있다. 식품ㆍ생활필수품ㆍ사료법(LFGB)은 그 명칭에서도 알 수 있듯이 단순 식품만을 규율하고 있는 것이 아니라 생활용품과 사료까지도 그 대상으로 하고 있다. 식품안전 사건은 단순 식품 자체만의 문제로부터 비롯되는 경우도 있지만 식품을 담고 있는 포장용기나 첨가물 그리고 재료 및 사료 등으로부터 비롯되는 경우도 있기 때문에 우리식품법제도 이와 같이 포괄적으로 그 규제대상을 넓히는 것도 고려해 보아야 할 것으로 보인다. 독일차원의 식품 위험평가와 위험관리는 각각 연방위험평가원(BfR)과 연방소비자보호식품안전청(BVL)이 수행하고 있으며 특히 연방위험평가원(BfR)은 업무에 있어서도 그렇고 정치적으로도 독립적인 지위를 보장받고 있다. 이러한 점을 고려해 보았을 때 우리도 식품 위험관리기관인 ‘식약처’와 위험평가를 전담할 ‘식품안전정보원’과 같은 조직의 강화와 독립성 보장을 논의해 보아야 할 시점이라고 판단된다. 식품은 국민의 생명과 건강에 직결되는 매우 중대한 사안이다. 따라서 사후대책보다는 사전예방 더욱 중요한 분야가 아닐 수 없다. 독일의 식품안전 관리는 예방이 중시되고, 이를 위해 식품안전 모니터링 제도가 시행되고 있다. 따라서 우리도 앞으로 위험 발생 이전의 예방 체계가 상시 가동될 수 있는 식품법제 마련에 보다 노력을 기울어야 할 것이다.Twenty-seven European Union member countries began to unify the food safety management system at the European level after suffering from the mad cow disease (BSE) outbreak in 1996. In this process, the European Community Regulation 178820022002 / EU on Food Safety, which are based on the white paper on food safety, are the basis of the European Food Act. The EU Food Act will partly play the same role as food safety that Member States played in their countries. The implications of EU food laws here are the uniform management of the entire production, processing, distribution and consumption of food under the motto of “From Farm to Table.” Germany has also replaced the existing food related laws with Germany’s Food, Living Essential Items and Feed Method (LFGB). This Act is the Federal Act, which is the most important fundamental law in the field of food sanitation management in Germany, and other comprehensive laws covering food safety and specific food safety regulations, “Code” (Gesech) German legislation regulates most of these laws under the Food, Living Essential Goods and Feed Act (LFGB). Therefore, we need to consider the need to revise the law based on the Food Hygiene Act or the Food Safety Basic Act. In Germany, there has also been widespread public debate over healthy eating after the discovery of beef infected with mad cow disease in November 2000. After that, Germany’s food safety management was divided into BMG and BMEL before beginning to be managed by the Federal Food and Agriculture Department. As you can see in its name, the Food, Living Essential Items and Feed Act (LFGB) not only regulates simple food but also aims to include household goods and feed. Food safety cases often arise from the problem of simple food itself, but we also have a comprehensive product law because it may be seen from the container, additives, and materials and feed containing the food. The food risk assessment and risk management at the German level are carried out by the Federal Risk Assessment Institute and the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (B.V.), respectively, and the Federal Risk Assessment Institute is also politically independent. In light of this, we should also discuss strengthening the organization, such as the Food Risk Management Agency, and the Food Safety Information Agency, which will be in charge of risk assessment. Food is a very important issue that directly affects the lives and health of the people. Therefore, prevention is more important than follow-up. Prevention is important for food safety management in Germany, and food safety monitoring systems are being implemented for this purpose. Therefore, we should put more effort into preparing food laws so that the preventive system before the danger can be implemented at all times.

Food police emerged as a key role for legal implementation following a series of food scandals in Europe and Taiwan which began in the 1990s. Proper institutional control has been recognized as an essential element in protecting consumers with respect to food, and so, following the adoption of Regulation 178/2002, the EU acted to establish an effective food control system converting all the food chain from farm to table. The EU applied a separation principle for risk assessment and risk management in food safety. In line with the European Commission responsible for risk management, the food police in the EU and its Member States play a critical function in auditing food products and cracking down illegal activities. The EU food police would enhance the EU’s food safety governance and promote the implementation of EU food law. This food police system thus facilitates the Europeanisation of food inspection at the European level and provides a multilevel institutional protection for food safety and consumer interest in the EU. This paper examines EU food control jurisprudence and the associated implement framework on food police, and compares these with corresponding institutions and practices in Taiwan. It also offers some proposals for food police reform in Taiwan to enhance the food law implementation in general.

In a relatively recent strand of case law, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) established the duty for national courts to apply EU consumer law ex officio, due to the weak position the consumer is deemed to hold vis-à-vis the seller or supplier. This development has to be seen in the context of the decentralized enforcement of EU (consumer) law and the procedural autonomy of the Member States. However commendable the outcome in this type of cases may be, the way the ECJ finds its decision is often not entirely logical. It is argued that this is also the case in the recent judgment in KdG/Kuijpers, which dealt with default proceedings before judicial courts. This article examines the reasoning in the Advocate General’s (AG) opinion and the ECJ’s judgment. It will become clear that there seem to be some loose ends in both. It is not the purpose of this contribution to provide for an overarching theoretical scheme that covers all of the Court’s case law concerning procedural autonomy or the ex officio application of EU (consumer) law. The sole aim is to pinpoint some oddities. This is necessary if we want to check whether the law in books and the law in action coincide with one another, and if so, to what extent that is the case.

This is the first comprehensive analysis of the European Union law of food regulation. It details the way in which EU law impacts upon the production and sale of food throughout the Union. It examines the legal protection accorded to the free movement of food within the EU, discussing those circumstances in which Member States may derogate from this principle, in particular where this is done to protect human health or safeguard consumer interests. Chapter four discusses and places in context the international trade law influences on EU food law. Chapter five describes EU responses to recent food safety crises – avian influenza and BSE. The book also deals with issues such as nutrition law and policy, obesity, GMOs, organic food, animal welfare and food naming and labelling. This book offers an account of the historical, political, sociological and jurisprudential context of European Union food law. The author, who is an academic and consultant in this area, translates the legal and scientific complexities of food law into a lucid and compelling narrative. The resulting work will also prove an indispensable guide to the practitioner.

This right to safe food is one of consumers' most important fundamental rights. This issue is directly related to human health and life, the preservation and development of the human race, and the process of international development and integration. Ensuring food safety is currently a topic that has been paid attention to internationally as well as nationally. On a global scale, food safety issues are a significant concern addressed by the world community through many signed international agreements and conventions on ensuring food hygiene and safety. In Vietnam, food safety is one of the most urgent issues in the context of economic development and world integration, which garners concern from the whole society. Although the Vietnamese government has gradually improved the legal system regulating food safety, the situation regarding violations of food safety laws is still quite complicated. The article addresses the need to ensure the right to food safety to consumers, and analyzes the provisions of international and Vietnamese law on this right. From there, recommendations are proposed to countries to improve efficiency in ensuring food safety for consumers.KEYWORDS: Food safety, Right to use safe food, International law, Vietnamese law.

“Continental law is irrational. American law is irresponsible.” With this phrase, Christoph Engel has described the prejudices on both sides of the Atlantic regarding legal science. Indeed, both legal systems seem to have noticed a need to correct these failures. In European legal science, arguments of efficiency based on the assumption of rational behaviour increasingly gain momentum. In the USA regulators increasingly take into account market failures based on information from “the people” as they “speak” through behavioural science research. Some European scholars have taken the development in the USA as an opportunity to also call for more implementation of behavioural sciences into European regulation. While this is a valid concern, I will argue that they nonetheless often seek to cure a disease that is not as pertinent in EU internal market law as it is in US economic law. They transfer solutions from US regulation to EU internal market law without asking whether European and US American problems are similar and whether the cure is the same. They thereby neglect the fact that both legal systems are embedded in different legal cultures or domains, as they have developed differently in course of history and seek to remedy also different problems by regulation. I will show that quite a number of problems that the USA corrects by using behavioural research have not (yet) materialized in EU internal market law, but others have. Due to its intrinsic need to establish an internal market even against the nation state’s will, EU law has always had to rely on the responsiveness of its peoples in order to make the establishment of the internal market a success. As to this need, purely efficiency-driven macro-economic regulation without a social bottom-up backup by the peoples of Europe has always failed. EU law hence witnesses a “legitimacy market failure”, which is the outcome of the specific setting of the multi-level character of EU law. This legitimacy market failure, I argue, needs to be cured with behavioural research. It is this behavioural approach that provides the EU with the means it needs to secure legitimacy in its regulation and even expand its regulative capacity against the Member States’ to an extent where it could even regulate in areas where no norm explicitly provides it with any competence.

Pensions, pension policy, and retirement provision has been historically associated with Member States alone. However, this is not so any longer. For years, occupational pension schemes have been brought within the scope of the internal market of the European Union. Extensive judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union, as well as harmonised legislation from the EU legislature have followed to improve the marketplace for work-related pensions. Today, the market freedoms are now being furthered to cover not just occupational pension schemes, but also, the private pension market. In light of such developments at EU level, including the development of pan-European Personal Pension (PEPP) products, what is evident is a significant shift in the establishment of an EU-wide private pension market, mirroring developments in the United States in what are known as ‘individual retirement accounts’ (IRAs). In light of these EU advances emanating from free movement case law and the PEPP Regulation, with effects for both individual Europeans as future retirees, and financial services undertakings as pension product providers; this article analyses the complementary aspects of both positive and negative integration in the private pension market. The article elaborately demonstrates the significant effect of legal progress, through slow-moving developments, that are collectively contributing to closing the deficit in the retirement provision of Europe’s retirees of the future. EU internal market law, EU free movement law, pension law, private pensions, national personal pension products, PPP, Pan-European Personal Pension Products, PEPP, retirement, harmonisation

Regulations on Animal and Plant Health and on Organic Food and Country of Origin or Place of Provenance

Food Hygiene and Global Health