This article focuses on the use and regulation of eight toxic pesticides in agricultural production in China. The pesticides are bifenthrin, chlorpyrifus, diazinon, dimethoate, methidathion, omethoate, phosmet and phosphamidon. These pesticides pose widely recognised public health risks in China. So far as we know, the article is the first article in English ever to treat these pesticides systematically from the standpoint of the regulation of risks to human beings and to the environment. Adopting perspectives from public health, economic sociology and law, the article considers the principal characteristics of these pesticides, the main health risks associated with their use in agricultural production and how these pesticides in agricultural production are currently regulated in Chinese law. It identifies a series of policy implications and makes specific policy recommendations concerning risk regulation of these eight pesticides.

The importance of the concept of risk and risk management in the data protection field has grown explosively with the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679). The article explores the concept and the role of risk, as well as associated risk regulation mechanisms in EU data protection law. It shows that with the adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation there is evidence of a two-fold shift: first on a practical level, a shift towards risk-based data protection enforcement and compliance, and second a shift towards risk regulation on the broader regulatory level. The article analyses these shifts to enhance the understanding of the changing relationship between risk and EU data protection law. The article also discusses associated potential challenges when trying to manage multiple and heterogeneous risks to the rights and freedoms of individuals resulting from the processing of personal data.

Many factors influence consumers’ perceptions and purchasing decisions, with product labelling forming the primary means of communication. The extent to which labels should contain information about traceability is debated. Whilst traceability is an important tool used by food business organisations and regulators in assuring food safety, other drivers for information about traceability are less well understood. This paper reviews the issues related to drivers for traceability from a consumer perspective, and evaluates country-of-origin labelling (COOL), enabling technologies and food fraud as potentially significant drivers in consumer requirements for information. The implications for risk assessment, systems implementation and communications about traceability are also considered.

This article seeks to make a contribution to the food safety regulation literature, and to the broader framework of risk regulation, in the attempt to establish both theoretically and empirically what can be intended as effective governance of food safety regulation. The aim is to review existing measures of effectiveness of food safety governance, and to give a preliminary definition of effectiveness, together with a theoretical perspective on how to operationalise it, eventually proposing an empirical measurement. Effectiveness of food safety governance can be measured – on the one hand – as the capacity of consumers’ protection, and thus, as the minimisation of risk related to food, and – on the other hand – as the capacity of protection of producers’ interests, in order to ensure competitiveness within the market. Distinguishing food safety delivered from food safety perceived, the article seeks to analyse dimensions of effectiveness related to both the protection of consumers and producers, and to the minimisation of risk, drawing upon Elinor Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) and, particularly, her conceptualisation of opportunistic behaviour.

Joined Cases C-78/16 and C-79/16, Giovanni Pesce (et al) v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, [2016] EU:C:2016:428.

In Xylella, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was called upon to assess how far policymakers can go in conditions of scientific uncertainty, and whether EFSA opinions can be indirectly subject to judicial review, despite not being legally binding. In particular, the Xylella case highlights the relevance of EFSA’s scientific authority over the Commission: since EFSA opinions are not directly reviewable by the CJEU – as they constitute an intermediate stage of a more complex administrative procedure – the political and legal liabilities relating to EFSA assessments are entirely shifted onto the Commission, whose discretion is reviewable by the EU judiciary. In this regard, the Xylella case confirms how difficult the judicial review of precautionary measures can be. It shows once again that a full assessment of these measures is impossible, as scientific uncertainty restricts the grounds for judicial review to the manifest appropriateness of the contested measures and the availability of less onerous and equally effective measures.