Research in lifestyle risks is becoming more and more important, particularly with reference to what is generally known as “unhealthy diets”. The Law is now firmly established as a prominent instrument of Public Health. There are several distinctive methods of legal intervention targeted at counteracting overweight and promoting healthier lifestyles. In this paper we examine several measures that have been adopted and discuss whether Law should foster healthy diets. Our purpose is to examine the threats of falling into a paternalistic attitude when devising any regulatory intervention aimed at promoting a healthier lifestyle.

Nanomaterials have been the object of numerous public and private initiatives aiming to manage their risks and maximise their benefits. Proponents of nanotechnology programmes argue that their potential negative impacts need to be dealt with appropriately, and wish to integrate these concerns early in the industrial development of these substances. Science policy programmes do not provide a clear definition of the term “nanomaterials”. Defining nanomaterials, however, has become a central concern. It is called for by manufacturers who wish to sell the “nano” quality of their products as well as by associations who wish to classify products in order to facilitate consumer choice or introduce constraints on production.

This is more than an obscure technical and legal issue for specialists. Indeed, science and technology studies has shown that technical classifications perform social order, and that the creation of new entities destabilises the conduct of democratic life. For instance, Sheila Jasanoff demonstrates that the “ontological uncertainty” of biotechnological objects leads to the construction of different political forms in the United States and Europe. Building a legal and technical framework for biotechnology objects allocates public roles, defines expertise objectivity, and identifies public concerns – in short, it shapes political organisations at the same time as it constructs technological definitions.

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.

In the World Trade Organization (WTO), the US approach to science-based risks and trade restrictions prevailed over that of the European Union (EU). The EU, dissatisfied with the margin of action available when “relevant scientific evidence is insufficient”, largely kept intact its internal practice on marketing and importing genetically modified (GM) crops and GM-containing products. The goal of this article is to ascertain whether these regulatory preferences of the US and the EU translate into their post-Biotech external trade efforts. US and EU preferential trade agreements are scanned for rules on trade in biotechnology goods or the use of precautionary elements in regulation. It transpires that neither bloc systematically tries (or manages) to bend trade agreements to accommodate its defensive or offensive trade interests in this field. Among the possible reasons for this apparent inertia are the US confidence in the WTO baseline and the EU preference for a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to its trade-restrictive policy in this area.

The so-called European migration crisis has sparked significant attention from scholars and raises questions about the role of solidarity between states and the European Union (EU) in providing policy solutions. Tension exists between upholding the rights of those seeking entry and pooling resources between Member States to provide a fair and efficient migration system. This article deconstructs the shifts that have occurred in EU migration policy since 2015 to highlight how narratives of health have become tools of governance. It does so to illuminate how health narratives operate to minimise the impact that conflicts on the nature and substance of EU solidarity have on policy development in response to the perceived crisis. A governmentality lens is used to analyse the implications of increasingly prescribed policy applications based on screening and categorising, and how measures operate to responsibilise migrants and third-countries to act according to EU values. It is argued this approach to governance results in migrants facing legal uncertainty in terms of accessing their rights and excludes them from the EU political space, which is problematic for how EU governance can be understood.

This policy-oriented article explores the sustainability dimension of digitalisation and artificial intelligence (AI). While AI can contribute to halting climate change via targeted applications in specific domains, AI technology in general could also have detrimental effects for climate policy goals. Moreover, digitalisation and AI can have an indirect effect on climate policy via their impact on political processes. It will be argued that, if certain conditions are fulfilled, AI-facilitated digital tools could help with setting up frameworks for bottom-up citizen participation that could generate the legitimacy and popular buy-in required for speedy transformations needed to reach net zero such as radically revamping the energy infrastructure among other crucial elements of the green transition. This could help with ameliorating a potential dilemma of voice versus speed regarding the green transition. The article will further address the nexus between digital applications such as AI and climate justice. Finally, the article will consider whether innovative governance methods could instil new dynamism into the multi-level global climate regime, such as by facilitating interlinkages and integration between different levels. Before implementing innovative governance arrangements, it is crucial to assess whether they do not exacerbate old or even generate new inequalities of access and participation.

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.

Frequently, decisions related to health protection are taken directly on the basis of scientific assessment and they are not clearly understood, as is highlighted in the Xylella example. Therefore, this article suggests that coherent processing of information in risk assessment may allow also a “third party” (who has not already expressed a specific interest in the procedure) to participate. In order to truly grasp the EU administration, an accountable way of communicating is helpful. Therefore, communication around the democratic process might be based on EU administrative principles and rules supporting a composite administrative system: it must not neglect the implications of compliance with the multilingual principle and its consequences for EU law, which would also lead to greater trust in risk assessment.

COVID-19 is a zoonosis, a disease transmitted by an animal to humans. The diffusion of the outbreak is therefore born of an unsuitable, insufficient, excessively permissive food safety system. Hence, the regulation of food safety plays a central role in the protection of health and has done so on a global scale. The overall regulation of food safety therefore requires an increase in the level of health protection, even at the expense of commercial prerogatives. For these purposes, four reform measures are suggested: to transform the Codex Alimentarius Commission into an organisation that adopts international standards with the sole purpose of protecting health; to apply the precautionary principle on a global scale and in international organisations; to strengthen the mandatory labelling tool; and to create a worldwide system of controls.

On 22 January 2014, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice confirmed the validity of the powers entrusted to the European Securities Markets Agency under Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012, upholding their compatibility with the principle of institutional balance, the Lisbon Treaty and established case law of the CJEU.

This case note gives an overview of the ruling and analyses its implications for ESMA and the broader Union institutional setting, with particular regard to the interplay between EU Institutions and agencies. It concludes by highlighting some reasons for potential constitutional concerns resulting from the combination of politically unchecked agencies and highly controlled Institutions.

This section is devoted to giving readers an inside view of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP) law and risk regulation. In addition to updating readers on the latest developments in IP law and policies in technological fields (including chemicals, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs), the section aims at verifying whether such laws and policies really stimulate scientific and technical progress and are capable of minimising the risks posed by on-going industrial developments to individuals’ health and safety, inter alia.

The EC-Seal Products case raises a number of interesting issues for scholars researching in the broad area of risk regulation. This symposium addresses a selection of them through innovative, analytical contributions whose goals are to test central assumptions and question the logic of the findings and to bring fresh solutions to problems faced by the Appellate Body and the panel. In keeping with this analytical focus, this introduction to the symposium will not just present a summary of the key legal findings. Instead, it attempts to draw some further conclusions from the different contributions, to place the contributions in their broader legal context and to make connections between aspects (not) decided in Seals and scholarship on risk regulation, more generally.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) relies on scientific evidence as a conclusive risk assessment criterion, which ignores the inherent limitations of science. This article highlights certain trade-restrictive effects of scientific evidence and comments on the Agreement’s aversions to precautionary measures and the consumer concern of the harmful effects of biotech products that may be necessary to protect public health and biosecurity in many WTO Member States. These measures and concerns have become pressing issues due to surging consumer awareness and vigilance concerning environmental protection and food safety. The Agreement is yet to overcome the weaknesses of its endorsed international standardising bodies, the problematic definition of scientific evidence and treatment of justification for scientific risk assessment methods and the implementation difficulties faced by most developing states. This article analyses these issues under the provisions of the Agreement and the interpretations of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in disputes involving SPS matters, which fall short of addressing scientific uncertainty surrounding biotech products and their associated risks.

Joined Cases C-471/07 and C-472/07 AGIM and Others [2010] ECR I-00000

1. 1. The Member States determine, in compliance with the objective of transparency pursued by Council Directive 89/105/EEC and the requirements laid down by Article 4(1) of that Directive, the criteria on the basis of which the review of macro-economic conditions which is referred to in that provision is to be carried out, provided that those criteria are based on objective and verifiable factors (author's headnote).

2. 2. Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105, so far as its subject matter is concerned, is not sufficiently precise to have direct effect for the purposes of the national legal systems of the Member States (author's headnote).

3. 3. Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may, 18 months after the end of a general price freeze in respect of refundable medicinal products which lasted eight years, adopt a new measure freezing the prices of medicinal products without carrying out the review of macro-economic conditions which is provided for in that provision (official headnote).

Professor Ragnar Lofstedt has written a very interesting and thought provoking paper “Risk versus Hazard Assessment – How to Regulate in the 21st Century”. The paper reflects upon the advantages and disadvantages of using risk assessments compared to hazard assessments of chemical compounds. It investigates the debate that has been going on in recent years in Europe between regulators, politicians, NGOs and industry on the subject.

This commentary will discuss some of the assumptions that the analysis rests on as well as some of the conclusions that are presented in the paper.

First, the commentary will discuss the definition and critique of the “risk assessment” approach that Lofstedt presents. The commentary here concludes that Lofstedt's analysis of risk assessment does not take sufficiently into account the fact that risks can not always be calculated in an exact way because uncertainty rather than certainty is the condition when analysing chemicals.