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.

In the European Union (EU), novel foods and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are subject to long and costly authorisation procedures and post-marketing requirements. The regulatory frameworks applicable to novel foods and GMOs come into effect based on perceived factors of risk. These “risk triggers” are characteristics of novel foods and GMOs which differentiate them from traditional foods, creating a presumption of risk. Within the EU, consumer acceptance of genetically modified foods and novel foods like insects or cultivated meat is shaped by heuristics and biases, mainly focusing on the “novelty” and “unnaturalness” of these products, resulting in a predominantly negative perception. This paper investigates the close connection between cognitive biases identified in consumer perception literature and the implementation of specific risk triggers in the regulation of novel foods and GMOs in the EU. It subsequently raises concerns about the appropriateness of these risk triggers in forming a presumption of risk for these innovative products.

Water stress is a growing concern in Europe, partly due to the changing climate context. Despite the cross-cutting impacts that water availability has on different areas under the competence of the European Union (EU), there is not currently a comprehensive and systematic legal framework addressing this issue. The purpose of this article is therefore to examine the EU legislation that concerns the measures aimed at mitigating these risks. To this purpose, it is first examined how droughts and water scarcity are framed within EU legal acts. Based on such an overview, the analysis is directed to the mechanisms developed at the EU level for monitoring, identifying and forecasting water stress risks, as well as the legal provisions relating to the planning tools. The remainder of the article is devoted to the regulation of preventative measures for water scarcity and drought risk reduction, following the water hierarchy resulting from COM(2007) 414.

In its evaluation cycle, the European Commission emphasises the importance of good data and the systematic involvement of a plurality of policy stakeholders, including citizens. Findings from European Union policy evaluation should inform further law-making, encourage learning and provide accountability. Transparent and inclusive formal procedures and tools are seen as essential for securing citizen participation in risk regulation; however, the Commission faces numerous challenges in securing engagement, particularly concerning the complexity of policy issues and the formal procedures for institutionalised consultations. Considering the Commission’s work from a proceduralist perspective, the article engages with Vivien Schmidt’s notion of “throughput legitimacy” to explore recent procedural innovations emerging since the Better Regulation agenda that have sought to enhance accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness, ensuring fairer and more balanced input on EU policy performance. The article argues in favour of greater throughput legitimacy in ex post policy evaluation but recognises challenges to the promotion of evaluation tools and their use by citizens.

What role does the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) play in holding European Union (EU) regulatory science, ie the science underpinning public regulation, to account for its epistemic quality? Since Pfizer, CJEU case law has strengthened the role of science in both EU risk regulation and litigation, whilst intensifying judicial scrutiny of scientific reasoning based on procedural standards. Scholars often welcome this approach as striking an adequate balance between effective judicial protection and institutional competence. Some praise the Court as an ‘information catalyst’ promoting procedures, in which epistemic quality is ensured through diligent consideration of and deliberation among all relevant voices. These debates, however, overlook the role of economic actors as information providers, in and challengers of EU risk regulation. This paper re-evaluates the modern post-Pfizer approach from a new, socio-legal perspective by studying, for the first time, the interactions between judicial review and the epistemic power of economic actors, ie their relative ability to influence what EU regulators know at the expense of other actors. We combine an epistemologically informed comparative institutional analysis with doctrinal critique of CJEU case law. Our findings show the need to rethink both legal standing and procedural review in EU risk regulation. Instead of catalysing inclusive procedures that open regulatory science to public scrutiny, the modern approach fosters an exclusive bilateral information exchange between the administration and the regulated industry. The Court reduces the function of process values, such as duty of care and reason-giving, to the protection of a small circle of actors, neglecting the public interest dimension of such values. Thus, the modern approach fails to address, and instead further entrenches the epistemic power imbalances inherent in EU risk regulation. We end by sketching out a normative and doctrinally sound vision of how CJEU review could contribute to EU expert accountability in a more publicly oriented way.

Increasing interest from stakeholders has brought about a new emphasis on risk regulation in the oil and gas industry. Our basis for this work is the offshore oil and gas industry, which is composed of major operators, entrepreneurs and contractors working globally, but we focus on Norwegian and US activities. The fundamental strategies, institutions, legal traditions and explanations of regulation are reviewed and, together with empirical data, a novel model with the means of identifying “effective” regulation has been developed. The model presented here incorporates three dimensions: the industry’s intentions; their resources and expertise and trust in the regulator (and vice versa: the regulator’s trust in the industry); and the space where functional respective normative rules are deemed most effective.

This Article frames the precautionary principle as an inner limit to the EU institutions’ broad discretion in the field of EU risk regulation, contextualizing recourse to the principle against the more encompassing backdrop of socially acceptable risk approaches. On these grounds, it inquires to what extent the precautionary principle may be successfully invoked in challenges to acts which are deemed insufficiently protective. The opening sections set the ground for the analysis. The third section analyzes challenges to regulatory acts, arguing that the Court has followed a quantitative threshold approach. This is legally tenable and appropriate; however, it cannot do justice to the true nature of the precautionary principle. The following sections analyze cases involving legislative acts. This includes an in-depth examination of the recent Blaise case, which has put judicial review of compliance with the precautionary principle under the spotlight. Against this overall background, this Article concludes that judicial review can hardly do justice to the precautionary principle, as applicable to the risk management process and underpinning EU legislative frameworks. It will ultimately rest on EU risk managers and EU legislators to ensure that the principle is applied and that its overarching goals are pursued.

In recent years, pesticides have captured the attention of both policymakers and the general public. A particular focus has been the transparency of the EU-level procedure for approving active substances, spurred by controversies surrounding the active substance glyphosate. Active substances are the ingredient in pesticides with the pesticidal effect. Once an active substance is approved at EU level, the pesticide containing that active substance must be authorised by each Member State. For this purpose, the EU's 2009 Plant Protection Product Regulation divides Member States into three zones—Northern, Central, and Southern—within which, zonal rapporteur Member States evaluate applications for authorisation. National authorisation decisions are based on these zonal evaluations. This novel system governing pesticides is under-researched. Furthermore, unlike active substance approval, the transparency of pesticide authorisation escapes public and policy scrutiny. Drawing on empirical research conducted for the European Parliament, this article evaluates the transparency of the zonal pesticide authorisation procedure. It thus contributes to the literature on transparency a detailed exploration of transparency in a highly complex, decentred, and polycentric risk regulation regime. While it finds that the zonal pesticide authorisation procedure, generally speaking, does not operate transparently, it argues further that levels of transparency within the regime as a whole may vary significantly depending on multiple different factors. It introduces the concept of ‘chiaroscuro regulation’ to characterise and understand these varying levels of transparency across different elements of the regime and considers some of its implications.

This article analyses the recent reform to the EU’s genetically modified organisms (GMO) regime which allows Member States to restrict the cultivation of GMO on their territory for reasons that do not relate to issues of health and safety or the environment. By allowing for national differentiation – although on legally questionable grounds – new Article 26b of Directive 2001/18/EC has been presented as a solution to overcome the impasse in GMO decision-making. However, this article finds that the reform fails to provide a solution for the EU regime’s most pressing problem, namely its disregard for scientific uncertainty and disagreement.

This article describes the processes that led the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a National Inspection Plan for domestic waste water treatment systems, following intervention from European Union institutions. The discussion focuses on two issues: the role of transnational institutional settings in galvanizing innovation and regulatory reform, and the practical challenges of dealing with lower risks. It is argued that multi-level transnational regimes have considerable potential to stimulate high-level reviews of regulatory strategy. As a result, lower risks present challenges that cannot be ignored in favour of policies that focus on the most severe risks. Traditional risk regulation theories, it is contended, do not provide much assistance in selecting intervention strategies in the face of such pressures, but the example of the Irish EPA shows how regulators can address these issues.

The literature on risk regulation often assumes a direct link between public pressure and regulatory responses. This article investigates whether the direction of regulatory response is related to public argumentation as expressed in the national print media. Three approaches are explored: national policy patterns, political panics expressed in Pavlovian politics, and policy responses shaped by universal policy paradigms. It assesses these three approaches in comparative perspective by looking at scandals in food safety regulation in Denmark, Germany and the US, looking at argumentation patterns in the national print media and using a coding system derived from grid-group cultural theory and regulatory responses. While all three countries display mostly hierarchical argumentation patterns, their actual regulatory responses point to diverse patterns.