During the mid 1990s, amid increasing anxiety over food safety, the Irish government and the EU sought to reform food regulation. Prompted by the political fallout over bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), this process would lead to the foundation of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), a body sufficiently innovative to prove an important influence upon the European Food Safety Authority. The FSAI was designed to resurrect public confidence in food regulation. The government argued that it would replicate the USA's Food and Drugs Administration, involve new regulatory relationships and elevate the role of science. On closer inspection, however, rather more exists in the way of continuity than change. Thus, while there has been much emphasis upon the manner in which risk is assessed and communicated, little has changed in how it is managed. This paper argues that such reform has been shaped by developments taking place at an international level between the EU and the WTO. On this level, the measures that are taken to protect food safety are those that have as little impact as possible on free trade. This paper also challenges those who interpret such change as part of the emergence of a risk society. In contrast, this paper contends that reform remains firmly embedded within a political project that favours reducing state regulation. Government, it seems, is no longer willing to assume an all-encompassing role in which it defines food standards and regulates and defends a particular food safety regime. It is a Hayek-inspired vision, where order is restored not through more stringent regulation but through the collection of individually informed choices made by those confronted with hazards. In a subtle but nonetheless crucial fashion, it involves the 'individualisation' of risk, so that government is charged with the task of providing the requisite information upon which individuals can make a scientifically informed judgement.
Read full abstract