In modern Western societies the societal emphasis on risk and the minimization of it frequently leads to a call for increasing risk regulation. This mechanism is referred to as the vicious circle of risk regulation, and might cause a variety of problems such as overregulation and breaches of individual privacy. Different solutions have been put forward to break the vicious circle: a greater emphasis on individual citizens’ responsibility, a more rational approach in which governments calculate the greatest safety yield for a given budget and greater democracy: citizen participation in risk and safety related decision making processes. As each approach involves serious disadvantages the authors argue that a well-considered, unhurried approach might be the best way forward. Leadership is largely about timing and with regard to risk management after critical events taking one's time seems crucial indeed.

Over recent years there has been a growing concern for the tendency of modern Western public administrators and regulators to overregulate risk – also coined the risk-regulation-reflex (RRR). Too often public decision-makers react to instances of risk with knee-jerk interventions such as increased regulation and inspections. The underlying assumption behind this response is that fatalism, in the sense of accepting risk, is no longer tolerated by citizens and has no place in the current political discourse. This paper challenges that assumption and suggests, on the contrary, that political messages about accepting risk deserve a revival. A balanced perspective can help Western society avoid the pitfall of overreacting to risk.

Safety regulations are too often disproportional in the sense that their costs outweigh the benefits. Although this is well known, years of trying to reduce safety related regulatory pressure has not resulted in much success. Two important causes for this have not received much attention up to now. One of these is a faulty perception of how the general public regards risk. We argue that the intractable citizen's behaviour needs better understanding. The second cause is the single-mindedness of risk experts which calls for specific instruments to be harnessed.

Responding to public fears and the loss of confidence in the aftermath of several food safety crises in the 1990s and 2000s, more and more regulatory laws have increasingly been affected by the precautionary principle. To clarify how those developments can have adverse consequences, we discuss two very different cases. First, at the molecular level we discuss the problems the system encounters by strictly applying the linear no-threshold (LNT) at low doses model, which was adopted in response to fears about the effects of ionizing radiations. Second, at a global scale, we discuss the problems associated with the precautionary regulation on Illegal, Unreported and Unregistered Fisheries that came into effect January 1, 2010. The technical aspects of food safety testing and their impacts are perhaps unknown to policy makers but they do dominate safety decisions. Both examples show that strict application of the precautionary principle produce deleterious side effects, which go against the very policy values that the precautionary regulation should protect. We show, in particular, that overly precautionary food safety regulation may harm food security. We conclude in the EU and other Western nations, problems of food security are much more relevant to human health and life expectancy than food safety. We recommend that current food safety regulation based on the precautionary risk-regulation reflex should normatively be re-evaluated with a complete regard for the values of food security – both within and outside the EU.

Former Soviet republics and other countries of the ex-Communist “block” may seem unlikely places to look for inspiration in “better regulation”. In fact, their experience in moving away (with varying degrees of success) from an approach based on “total control” and complete risk-aversion (an absolute RRR, as it were) may be an opportunity to get many insights. Data from surveys conducted by the World Bank Group allows to shed light on trends in regulatory delivery, and in particular in inspections, which is the primary way in which the RRR is felt by businesses. This paper describes the starting situation, analyses the reform processes and their outcomes, and attempts to draw some lessons – as well as some comparisons with situations and experiences in EU and OECD countries. Tentative conclusions suggest both that addressing the inspections and control issue (and not just regulations themselves) is crucial to success in reform, and that reducing the “pressure” from total control through a “risk-focused” approach leads to real improvements in the business climate without negatively affecting public safety.

This article looks back at the history and legacy of the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council in the UK. The Council was the first government body to explicitly challenge a culture of overreaction to ‘public risk’, one of a number of ways in which it was a unique and interesting experiment in addressing the political dimension of contemporary regulation. Whilst the RRAC was ultimately unsuccessful in bringing about a change in how risk is managed by government it has, at least, left a useful intellectual legacy and, more practically, its work is effectively being taken forward by the Risk and Responsibility programme of the Dutch government.

The Dutch Risk and Responsibility programme (DRRP), which builds on the pioneering work that the BRC and RRAC carried out in Britain, is nearing completion. This article describes the background and course of the programme and offers a glimpse of the preliminary results. DRRP has created awareness of the ‘risk regulation reflex’ among a wide array of people and organisations. That term originated during the Day of Risk, a landmark conference that took place in The Hague marking the start of a fertile international network.

Many European countries, including Switzerland, share deep suspicions about the broad commercial application of Genetically Modified Plants (GMP) in agriculture. Research in GMP, however, is mostly welcome. In Switzerland, nevertheless, an overprotective legal framework against risks of GMP results in regulatory spillovers for research. This article explores how such expanded legal protection in combination with the application of a strong precautionary principle hampers freedom of research in the field of green gene technology. The authors do not seek, on this occasion, to question the general risk assessment of Swiss legislators and their desire for a high level of protection. However, field trials with GMP will cease to take place if the procedural burdens for researchers are not reduced. In particular, it will be vital to establish research zones (“protected sites”) if research in GMP is to continue to take place in Switzerland.

This article looks at the different regulatory approaches on food irradiation, starting with international standards on food irradiation, describing the approach in the US and other third countries, and finally in the EU, where there has been a regulatory standstill since 1999. The current EU approach on food irradiation, which authorises irradiation of certain predefined product categories and sets upper dose limits, does not appear to be in line with the approach used under the relevant internationally-recognised standards, such as the Codex Alimentarius and the International Plant Protection Convention. There are potential legal conflicts between the current regulatory framework on food irradiation in the EU and the international trade framework of the World Trade Organization. Ultimately, the EU must base its measures on scientific principles, on relevant international standards, and choose the least trade-distortive measures that are available (i.e., ensure that they are applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health). In 2011, the European Food Safety Authority published new risk assessments on food irradiation, which the European Commission has requested in view of drafting new EU legislation on food irradiation, and which appear to open the way for a fundamental altering of the regulatory parameters (such that food irradiation regulations must be scientifically-justified and in line with the relevant international standards), and seem to weaken the EU stance vis-à-vis the possible instances where the current rules on food irradiation prevent (de jure or de facto) access to the EU market by third countries’ operators and products, particularly those of developing countries.

Agrochemicals belong to the best tested and evaluated substances in Europe. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (“Regulation 1107”) sets forth the requirements regarding quality, safety and efficacy of agrochemicals and provides which documentation has to be submitted in order to obtain regulatory approval. The documents filed with the regulatory authorities contain proprietary information and know-how of the registrants. Accordingly, registrants have a legitimate interest in confidential treatment. Regulation 1107 thus contains specific confidentiality provisions.

On the other hand, EU legislation on transparency, in particular the legislation implementing the Aarhus Convention, provides for rights of access to information held by institutions. Recently, a number of legal actions related to the regulatory procedures for agrochemicals have been based on the transparency legislation.

This report analyses the relationship between the transparency legislation and Regulation 1107 with regard to rights of access to information provided in the regulatory process for agrochemicals.

Towards the end of 2011, the Responsible Gambling Fund published a report which, inter alia, offers an overview of the research gaps in relation to the comparative effectiveness of gambling regulation. In the present article, the authors of the report provide a summary of the main findings. They conclude that hardly any empirical evidence is available that addresses, directly or indirectly, this subject. In view of further research, a set of recommendations is provided.

The present Flash News Report sets outs recent EU regulatory law developments (as of 25 June 2012) which pharmaceutical companies should be aware of in the areas of Pharmacovigilance, Information on Medicines, Pricing and Reimbursement, EU Data Protection and Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products.