This Special Issue stems from some of the insights at the “Future of Food Law” Conference held at Wageningen University and Research (WUR) in 2023, prompting an examination of the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy’s achievements and shortcomings. With the von der Leyen Commission’s term concluding, the paper critically assesses key aspects of the F2F Strategy, laying the foundation for an in-depth discussion presented in six contributions. The exploration extends from US and EU perspectives to national considerations, moving even further and beyond the boundaries of the Strategy. It encompasses emerging views on food safety, fostering fair and sustainable agri-food production models, encouraging healthier and democratic food choices, and reevaluating decision-making distribution from EU to Member States in sustainability regulatory actions. This issue aims to probe how agri-food regulatory frameworks should adapt to current challenges, acknowledging new economic, social, and environmental expectations. As a frame to the six contributions, this paper addresses the substantial delay in implementing crucial food law interventions, with a focus on the legislative Framework for Sustainable Food Systems (SFSF). The paper concludes by outlining potential scenarios for the future of EU food law, emphasising the necessity for establishing a guiding principle of sustainability for food systems.

Imperfect information on food safety and risk has created a system with less safety than the public wants. Consumers cannot pay for the level of safety they desire. Tort under-compensates for foodborne illness due to difficulty proving causation. When market controls are ineffective at producing the level of safety desired by consumers, the classic approach is government regulation. However, government regulators face challenges that impede the translation of scientific knowledge into regulatory controls. This often results in an equilibrium of private interests and bureaucratic interests rather than the public interest. To restore republican deliberation on food safety we need greater citizen involvement in the decision-making. Access to the courts is an effective means for citizens to participate directly in the decisions affecting food safety; thus, a private cause of action to our national food safety laws is proposed.

EU food law is built on two paradigms – food safety and consumer choice. Consumers should have access to any food they like, provided that it is safe for consumption and that consumers are made aware of the products’ characteristics through adequate information. Growing emphasis on sustainability has not challenged these foundations. On the contrary, the law is intended as a tool to further empower consumers to make a healthy and environmentally responsible choice. However, it will be argued that this information centric approach is no longer a tenable position. The regulatory solutions characteristic of the consumer empowerment logic are of limited effectiveness and do not challenge the biggest obstacles to the sustainable transition of food systems – the commodification of food and the lack of regulation of the food environment. This contribution sketches out some far-reaching yet realistic food law reforms to genuinely address sustainability issues. Mindful of the special status of food and the growing discontent towards the EU and the green transition, this contribution also argues for some changes in the making and design of EU food law, leading towards greater involvement of citizens and local communities, and, ultimately, for truer empowerment of individuals.

A Sustainable Food System needs to be implemented through a legal framework balancing measures concerning all the aspects of sustainability (the social, economic and environmental ones), as defined by the Farm to Fork strategy.

Since environmental issues are considered a structural part of CAP regulations, a special attention shall be paid both to social and economic sustainability of agricultural and food system, as fundamental pillars for a resilient and competitive development of the primary sector.

A new “social” approach of agricultural policy takes into consideration the position of farmers (in particular, a fair revenue of their activity) and workers involved in the agricultural sector (in particular, the rights to protection and safety at work). It also involves the comprehensive rural areas, ie the social context that represents the premise to reach environmental goals of sustainability in rural territories, realised by the farmers themselves as main actors of the rural economy.

Therefore, for the future of food law, a strategic consideration of the legal framework related to people working in agriculture and agri-food sector should concern two main aspects.

On one hand, the introduction of social conditionality, establishing compliance with labour law rules, including work safety and transparency of employment conditions in agricultural labour contracts in order to receive CAP subsidies – becomes a component of the process for “safe food” through an “ethical and legal food production.”

On the other hand, it is important to consider the improvement of life conditions and services in rural areas in favour of resident citizens, the attractiveness of young farmers as well as the implementing measures for an inclusive growth.

These aspects, which make up a “social sustainability model” in the agri-food chain are strongly linked together and require a comprehensive policy regulation. This policy perspective includes a new perception of entrepreneurs and workers employed in rural areas intended for the production of food and related to the environmental protection.

This work has the aim of dissecting the legal and policy dress designed for the new “Green” Common Agricultural Policy (CAP 2023–27) across the proposed CAP Strategic plans (CSPs) of the EU member states. The analysis is carried out through the lens of a special inquiry: the consistency and coherence between the CAP and the perspective of the Green Deal and its satellite strategies, among all the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) and Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, for transition to a resilient and Sustainable food system. The F2F proposes a roadmap of interventions and sets specific goals to reach such a transition. Within these interventions, a renewed CAP is the first stage through which the direction undertaken by the EU can be measured. Following the new CAP delivery model, this work will investigate the national CSPs and address the consistency of the CAP financial instruments utilised to fulfill the social, economic and environmental objectives of the CAP according to the ambition of the F2F and other key strategies.

One of the less popular and less investigated topics of law is the use of biocontrol agents (BCAs). Despite the general growing attention to the use of BCAs in primary production, a comprehensive regulatory framework is still lacking. When shifting to possible uses of BCAs in the following phases of the food chain, legislation is even more incomplete (and inadequate) despite the challenging opportunities they offer both for pest control and for pathogen control. The paper will provide an overview of the uses of BCAs taking into consideration all the food chain stages, the relevant partial EU regulatory scheme and its critical issues.

The Framework for Sustainable Food Systems law will either not be published at all or after a long delay. Whereas the first part of the article constructs an empirical and theoretical underpinning about why the EU Member States should therefore act on food sustainability, the second part focuses on what legal measures Member States can take.

In the first part, leaning on food systems thinking, we argue that in the absence of EU action in the matter, the Member States remain the most potent lever for taking regulatory action on addressing sustainability in the food system.

In the second part, the article provides an exploratory study of potential national legal instruments for making domestic food systems more sustainable, with an emphasis on the regulation of offer and consumption of foods and food environments. The article discusses the following legal instruments in the context of EU law and Member States’ room for action, with examples from a comparative perspective: public procurement purchasing by governments, product composition requirements, fiscal measures, non-fiscal pricing instruments, labelling & certification, marketing, and the regulation of private and public food environments. The article further concludes that it may prove useful to better enshrine the food sustainability paradigm in law at national level.

Climate policy requires a steep and rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which are mainly caused by fossil fuels. Advertising that promotes fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive products undermines this objective. It normalises unsustainable consumption patterns and enables producers of harmful commodities to manipulate public discourse in order to delay or derail the energy transition – for example, by spreading misinformation, deflecting responsibility and promoting false solutions. For these reasons, there are increasing calls for a fossil fuel advertising ban along the lines of the tobacco advertising ban at both the European and the Member State level. This article evaluates the legality of such bans under European law, focusing on legislative competence, fundamental rights and internal market law. It finds that a fossil fuel advertising ban can be assumed to conform to the requirements of European law, especially if it is modelled after the tobacco advertising ban.

The response to the COVID-19 crisis implied an unprecedented involvement of the European Union (EU) executive in public health matters. In June 2020, the Member States agreed upon a joint EU Vaccines Strategy, whereby the European Commission was enabled to negotiate, support and allocate vaccine doses on their behalf. Entailing political and redistributive choices, the Commission’s centralised procurement presents some innovative patterns when compared to traditional EU executive action. This paper will focus on the institutionalisation of such patterns within the legal framework of the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA). Did EU administrative law offer appropriate tools for this process? Or did the EU merely formalise the procedural and organisational schemes set up during the crisis? Answers to these questions will contribute to a fuller understanding of the administrative dimension of the new European Health Union and shed light on some recent evolutions of the EU administrative system.

High pharmaceutical pricing practices in Europe have been increasingly on the radar of the European Union, academia and civil society as a risk to Member State health budgets. It is therefore hardly surprising that, in recent years, competition authorities have resuscitated the excessive pricing prohibition contained in Article 102(a) TFEU. Focusing on this phenomenon, this piece highlights the diverse ways in which the United Brands test has been applied in pharmaceuticals by conducting a comparative study of the decisional practice of national competition authorities. Several observations and arguments are then derived therefrom, demonstrating that, while difficult (most notably in respect to patent-protected products), competition authorities and courts have established sophisticated ways of determining whether a pharmaceutical price is excessive in the sense of Article 102(a) TFEU. These findings should encourage hesitant competition authorities and private plaintiffs to at least carry out preliminary investigations when they suspect excessive pricing in pharmaceuticals is taking place.

The proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is the first comprehensive attempt to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in a major jurisdiction. This article analyses Article 9, the key risk management provision in the AI Act. It gives an overview of the regulatory concept behind the norm, determines its purpose and scope of application, offers a comprehensive interpretation of the specific risk management requirements and outlines ways in which the requirements can be enforced. This article can help providers of high-risk systems to comply with the requirements set out in Article 9. In addition, it can inform revisions of the current draft of the AI Act and efforts to develop harmonised standards on AI risk management.

Due to its severity, the COVID-19 pandemic is one of the greatest crises to have tested the European Union’s (EU) ability to take effective action. The restrictive measures adopted by the Member States to curb its spread affected in particular the free movement of people and partly of goods. This prompted the EU to take action inter alia to maintain essential travel, protect supply chains, enhance contact tracing and facilitate the coordinated resumption of travel. Building on the notion of “output legitimacy”, this paper assesses the EU’s success in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in transport by looking at the four main initiatives between the end of 2020 and June 2022, namely: (1) the EU Digital COVID Certificates; (2) cross-border contact tracing through Passenger Locator Forms; (3) the “Green Lanes” for freight transport; and (4) the coordinated approach to facilitating safe and free movement. These initiatives are measured against the EU’s legal competence, economic interests, political pressure and the added value of EU action. While recognising the small set of cases, the results show that, although legal competence is a decisive factor for success, EU initiatives can achieve equivalent effect even in its absence, provided other conditions are met.

French whistleblower legislation establishes a unified legal regime for the treatment of reports and for the protection of whistleblowers. Drawing on French whistleblower law, recently amended by the transposition of Directive 2019/1937 of 23 October 2019, this article examines whether the specific features of whistleblowing in relation to public health and environmental risks are adequately addressed by this unified regime. The article identifies four key factors for the effective handling of whistleblowing relating to public health and the environment: (1) the possibility of protecting whistleblowers who report facts gathered outside the workplace; (2) the possibility of protecting legal persons as whistleblowers; (3) the possibility of carrying out in-depth investigations to characterise the reality of the risks reported; and (4) the possibility of archiving whistleblowing in order to detect weak signals of risks over the long term. In these four areas, the article provides a nuanced diagnosis of the situation in French law and offers suggestions for improvement.

This paper provides an analysis of the legal and policy foundations of the different approaches adopted by the European Union (EU) in relation to the 2015/2016 and 2022 refugee “crises”. Its main objective is to show how a risk-based biopolitical framework can bridge the gap between EU institutional narratives and the critique of Europe’s racialised governance schemes. The two “crises” have been largely shaped by a perceived need to manage risk, yet this has produced very different institutional responses, in ways that concealed their racialised dimension. Analysing how risk has been understood in the two contexts, the paper shows how their legal and policy foundations (re-)produce a racialised differential scheme. Amidst ongoing debates on reforming EU migration and asylum law, the paper also shows how the current proposals further consolidate this scheme.

This paper critically evaluates the European Commission’s proposed AI Act’s approach to risk management and risk acceptability for high-risk artificial intelligence systems that pose risks to fundamental rights and safety. The Act aims to promote “trustworthy” AI with a proportionate regulatory burden. Its provisions on risk acceptability require residual risks from high-risk systems to be reduced or eliminated “as far as possible”, having regard for the “state of the art”. This criterion, especially if interpreted narrowly, is unworkable and promotes neither proportionate regulatory burden nor trustworthiness. By contrast, the Parliament’s most recent draft amendments to the risk management provisions introduce “reasonableness” and cost–benefit analyses and are more transparent regarding the value-laden and contextual nature of risk acceptability judgments. This paper argues that the Parliament’s approach is more workable and better balances the goals of proportionality and trustworthiness. It explains what reasonableness in risk acceptability judgments would entail, drawing on principles from negligence law and European medical devices regulation. It also contends that the approach to risk acceptability judgments needs a firm foundation of civic legitimacy, including detailed guidance or involvement from regulators and meaningful input from affected stakeholders.

Online gambling emerged in the 1990s in the midst of a process of market liberalisation. Here, scholars have argued that the gambling industry actively seeks state regulation to authorise and legitimate its activities. Why then, since the emergence of the online gambling industry, have trade associations continually sought to develop responsible gambling codes of conduct? In this paper, I address this puzzle by documenting and tracing the development and deployment of responsible gambling codes of conduct by trade associations from the emergence of the online gambling industry in the early 1990s and through processes of increased market liberalisation at the national level and market integration at the European Union level. I argue that online gambling trade associations deploy responsible gambling codes of conduct at particular moments of opportunity to shape their members’ external legal and regulatory environment and to reproduce and embed a particular understanding of how gambling-related risks should be regulated.

On 9 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) delivered a preliminary ruling about the coordination of two European Union measures against air pollution: the Industrial Emissions Directive and the Ambient Air Quality Directive. Upon assessment, the Court reinforced the mandatory nature of the air quality limit values vis-à-vis possible derogations foreseen in the Industrial Emissions Directive. In this case, both AG Kokott and the Second Chamber affirmed the primacy of the air quality standards. However, this Case Note finds that slightly different reasoning between the AG Opinion and the final Judgment reveals differing underlying approaches. Whilst the AG focuses on air quality plans and leaves more room for discretion to national authorities, the final Judgment anchors the coordination of the two Directives to strict and objective pollution limit values, further strengthening the Ambient Air Quality Directive as an effective instrument of environmental protection litigation.