On 1 January 2017, France started a two-year trial of a mandatory country of origin labelling (hereinafter, COOL) scheme, which requires producers of milk, food containing milk products and food containing meat to provide information on the country of origin of the products. The scheme was introduced through Decree No 2016-1137 (i.e. Décret n° 2016-1137 du 19 août 2016 relatif à l’indication de l’origine du lait et du lait et des viandes utilisés en tant qu’ingrédient,1 hereinafter, the Decree). Before the end of this trial period, France has promised to provide a report to the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) that would allow it to review consumer patterns and the potential impact on the internal market. In view of the report, the Commission may consider implementing such a scheme in all EU Member States. This article also notes that other EU Member States are introducing their own COOL measures and concludes that, when COOL is being made mandatory, the EU’s international trade obligations must be taken into account by the EU and its Member States.

This report analyses the outcome of the latest meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. In this context, it concentrates on the adopted amendments to the partial guidelines for implementation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Framework Convention, recommendations on the regulation of e-cigarettes, and discussion on the interactions between international trade/investment obligations and implementation of the obligations of the Convention.

The ageless question regarding the interpretation of the average consumer benchmark at EU level recently gained momentum. The Court of Justice of the European Union has de facto deviated in a judgment from a strict application of the formula of the “reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect” consumer established in Gut Springenheide. This report investigates the possible implications of this judgment on the implementation of behavioural sciences in the “average consumer” benchmark.

This report introduces the challenges 3D bioprinting poses to the existing legal regime across bioethics, safety, regenerative medicine, and tissue engineering. We briefly review the 3D bioprinting technology and look into the relevant regulatory instruments for the pre-printing, printing, and post-printing stages. Special attention is paid to the applications of the EU Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Regulation and the new Medical Device Regulation.

I begin with two admissions. First, I am relatively new to risk regulation, and indeed academia in general, so this piece is based on still quite nascent views. Second, I fell into risk regulation scholarship almost by accident – therefore I hope this piece will provide an illustration of how strong the intellectual draw of the field is, having already captured my imagination at least!

In the following three sections I set out my risk regulation journey, and the understanding of the field I have developed so far. After summarising how I was drawn to risk regulation, I attempt to reflect philosophically on the purposes of risk regulation research, after which I outline the questions that I believe risk regulation scholars should be asking now and in future years, along with my corresponding research priorities.

This paper examines the potential impact of the European Union’s Environmental Liability Directive (ELD)1 on the nanotechnology (NT) sector. In terms of risk governance the ELD represents a new paradigm, affording the environment an enhanced status both in legal and indeed ontological terms. However, the nature of the NT industry itself is such as to create complexity in the implementation of the ELD. Whilst the field of nano-toxicology is making advances, debate still prevails around issues pertaining to exposure, (eco)-toxicity, metrics, potential impact and legal causation. Levels of uncertainty remain high and hence measuring environmental impact is problematic. The paper addresses the potential environmental liability exposures of NT manufacturers and producers pursuant to the provisions of the ELD and by extension highlights the importance of the insurability of the liability risk all of which bears significance for the sustainability of the industry. It also examines the legal and regulatory challenges of the application of the ELD in the context of the NT industry, highlighting the challenges which this pervasive technology presents for regulatory policy. A cursory discussion of the legal theoretical underpinning of the directive helps to explain the rationale of the directive.