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.

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.

This paper considers the legality of the UK practice of prosecuting trans people for sexual offences on the basis of deception as to gender history, a practice unknown in other member states. It argues that such prosecutions may constitute an unjustified violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, it argues that where criminal prosecution falls within the scope of Article 8 but is viewed as objectively justified under Article 8(2), it may constitute a violation of Article 14. The paper will proceed as follows. Part 2 will provide some background context regarding prosecution of trans people for deception as to gender history in the UK. Part 3 will set out the current law pertaining to sexual fraud in England and Wales. Part 4 will present two arguments as to why prosecutions based on current English law, or Crown Prosecution Service interpretations of it, may violate Article 8: (1) a right to respect for privacy is undermined by lack of legal certainty regarding the threshold of criminal liability; and (2) deception as to gender history ought not to be considered a material deception serving to vitiate consent as a matter of law. Part 5 will consider the issue of potential discrimination under Article 14.

The Covid-19 crisis provided an opportunity for the European Union to offer an alternative regulatory response to the crisis of values by systemically linking European funding to respect for the rule of law. A rule of law conditionality mechanism for spending was introduced in the Recovery and Resilience Facility and in Regulation 2020/2092. It is both positive – in that it encourages Member States to implement reforms and investments aimed at improving the rule of law – and negative – in that it takes the form of financial sanctions. However, the development of the rule of law conditionality is leading to an economisation of the concept of the rule of law, insofar as it mainly concerns those dimensions of the rule of law that are conducive to growth – such as justice systems and the fight against corruption. As a result, it could paradoxically exacerbate the very crisis it is designed to resolve.

One of the pillars on which product liability law is based is the defence for development risks. According to this defence, the producer is not liable for the damage caused to the injured party if, at the time the product was put into circulation, the state of scientific and technical knowledge did not allow the existence of the defect to be discovered. The Proposal for a Directive drafted by the European Commission and published on 28 September 2022 continues to provide, in Article 10.1.e), the defence for development risks. The Proposal for a Directive refers to this particular issue in Recital 39, which introduces some requirements for the assessment of such defence.

However, despite this recognition, does this defence fit into the digital paradigm, and how can it be applied to damage caused by defects in products with digital elements that incorporate artificial intelligence?