One of the most significant recent trends in global trade governance has been the increasing use of regulatory “reliance” arrangements as a significant element of trade alliances. Against this backdrop, an important set of questions are raised about how existing institutions of global trade governance – especially the World Trade Organization and international regulatory standards organisations – should respond. To what extent, and how, should such institutions facilitate reliance arrangements? And what role can they usefully play in overseeing and guiding their use? This paper begins to answer these questions through a focused case study of regulatory reliance in the agrifood sector. Four challenges are identified regarding the implementation of such arrangements: the high costs of establishment and maintenance; the lack of agreed and reliable assessment methodologies; the potential for arbitrary discrimination between trade partners; and the difficulties of dealing with regulatory change over time. In light of these challenges, the paper assesses the work of existing international organisations in governing reliance arrangements in the agrifood sector. The paper concludes with a number of preliminary suggestions as to how this architecture of global governance might be supplemented or harnessed to address some of the challenges posed by reliance arrangements.

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.

Imperfect information on food safety and risk has created a system with less safety than the public wants. Consumers cannot pay for the level of safety they desire. Tort under-compensates for foodborne illness due to difficulty proving causation. When market controls are ineffective at producing the level of safety desired by consumers, the classic approach is government regulation. However, government regulators face challenges that impede the translation of scientific knowledge into regulatory controls. This often results in an equilibrium of private interests and bureaucratic interests rather than the public interest. To restore republican deliberation on food safety we need greater citizen involvement in the decision-making. Access to the courts is an effective means for citizens to participate directly in the decisions affecting food safety; thus, a private cause of action to our national food safety laws is proposed.

This paper describes how the development of texts on regulatory deference by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) addresses relevant recommendations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and supports Member countries of CAC in their negotiation and implementation of equivalence agreements. We consider the role and function of CAC within a rules-based multilateral framework, particularly in relation to the development and implementation of equivalence concepts. We then consider whether, through use of equivalence agreements, trade facilitation outcomes have been realised. Our hypothesis is that international standards on regulatory deference promote fair but aspirational standards and support fair practices in the trade of safe food – both vital outcomes for global food security and the achievement of many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. We test this hypothesis against the framework provided by decisions of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee. We argue that the equivalence concepts and guidelines developed by CAC are appropriate but underutilised tools available for Member countries to strike a balance between their right to regulate to protect human, animal or plant life and health and to fulfil legitimate objectives whilst meeting their WTO obligations to avoid measures that constitute unnecessary barriers to trade.

A financial services supplier authorised in its home state that wishes to supply services cross-border into another state will, absent any relief, have in addition to meet the regulatory requirements of that host state to trade in it. Regulatory frictions including duplicative regulatory requirements are barriers to cross-border trade. This article considers certain techniques deployed to reduce such barriers, noting that trust plays a part in many of them. These techniques grant relief to incoming firms from obligations to comply with the regulatory requirements of a host state. They may take the form of unilateral arrangements, with or without any conditions. There may be assessments of equivalence as a basis for relief from compliance with the host state’s rules: deference to the home state’s regime, a basis for recognition, whether unilateral or mutual. Recognition may be given effect through a party’s domestic laws or in international law under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Article VII. A GATS Article VII agreement can relieve regulatory frictions in the financial services sector alone as there is no requirement for “substantial sectoral coverage” as required for regional trade agreements under GATS Article V. Mutual recognition agreements for financial services in international law are, however, few in number.

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.

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.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is not only increasingly being used in business and administration contexts, but a race for its regulation is also underway, with the European Union (EU) spearheading the efforts. Contrary to existing literature, this article suggests that the most far-reaching and effective EU rules for AI applications in the digital economy will not be contained in the proposed AI Act, but in the Digital Markets Act (DMA). We analyse the impact of the DMA and related EU acts on AI models and underlying data across four key areas: disclosure requirements; the regulation of AI training data; access rules; and the regime for fair rankings. We demonstrate that fairness, under the DMA, goes beyond traditionally protected categories of non-discrimination law on which scholarship at the intersection of AI and law has focused on. Rather, we draw on competition law and the FRAND criteria known from intellectual property law to interpret and refine the DMA provisions on fair rankings. Moreover, we show how, based on Court of Justice of the European Union jurisprudence, a coherent interpretation of the concept of non-discrimination in both traditional non-discrimination and competition law may be found. The final section sketches out proposals for a comprehensive framework of transparency, access and fairness under the DMA and beyond.

Previous research has neglected how repeated declarations of states of emergency (SsoE) in response to the same emergency may combine with executive overreach and underreach within a single jurisdiction, undermining the authority of the SsoE as a legal institution and increasing the vulnerability of the constitutional system as a result. This article examines how decision-makers’ commitment to a culture of justification is central to avoiding emergency mismanagement via underreach, overreach or their combination. The simultaneous instances of executive overreach and underreach as emergency management failures are studied via the Slovak case, which was celebrated for its initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic but castigated for its failure to contain the subsequent waves. The analysis of the legal framework of the SsoE and the justifications for SsoE declarations uncovers the lack of justifications for the patterns of simultaneous executive underreach and overreach, underscoring the elusiveness of these categories. The limited justifications for the decisions demonstrated by the “government in panic” point to the undermining of the SsoE as a legal institution. The article concludes with highlighting how leaders’ role conceptions as democratic emergency managers might be necessary to sustain the authority of the SsoE.

This work has the aim of dissecting the legal and policy dress designed for the new “Green” Common Agricultural Policy (CAP 2023–27) across the proposed CAP Strategic plans (CSPs) of the EU member states. The analysis is carried out through the lens of a special inquiry: the consistency and coherence between the CAP and the perspective of the Green Deal and its satellite strategies, among all the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) and Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, for transition to a resilient and Sustainable food system. The F2F proposes a roadmap of interventions and sets specific goals to reach such a transition. Within these interventions, a renewed CAP is the first stage through which the direction undertaken by the EU can be measured. Following the new CAP delivery model, this work will investigate the national CSPs and address the consistency of the CAP financial instruments utilised to fulfill the social, economic and environmental objectives of the CAP according to the ambition of the F2F and other key strategies.

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.

One of the less popular and less investigated topics of law is the use of biocontrol agents (BCAs). Despite the general growing attention to the use of BCAs in primary production, a comprehensive regulatory framework is still lacking. When shifting to possible uses of BCAs in the following phases of the food chain, legislation is even more incomplete (and inadequate) despite the challenging opportunities they offer both for pest control and for pathogen control. The paper will provide an overview of the uses of BCAs taking into consideration all the food chain stages, the relevant partial EU regulatory scheme and its critical issues.

The Framework for Sustainable Food Systems law will either not be published at all or after a long delay. Whereas the first part of the article constructs an empirical and theoretical underpinning about why the EU Member States should therefore act on food sustainability, the second part focuses on what legal measures Member States can take.

In the first part, leaning on food systems thinking, we argue that in the absence of EU action in the matter, the Member States remain the most potent lever for taking regulatory action on addressing sustainability in the food system.

In the second part, the article provides an exploratory study of potential national legal instruments for making domestic food systems more sustainable, with an emphasis on the regulation of offer and consumption of foods and food environments. The article discusses the following legal instruments in the context of EU law and Member States’ room for action, with examples from a comparative perspective: public procurement purchasing by governments, product composition requirements, fiscal measures, non-fiscal pricing instruments, labelling & certification, marketing, and the regulation of private and public food environments. The article further concludes that it may prove useful to better enshrine the food sustainability paradigm in law at national level.

Today, there are a dozen labelling schemes pertaining to farm animal welfare in at least seven Member States. Despite the proliferation of animal welfare labels, European Union rules on food information to consumers concerning the treatment of farmed animals used in animal-source food production remain fragmented and incomplete. On the one hand, the rules contained in agricultural regulations primarily aim to harmonise marketing standards, but only for some products. On the other hand, consumer protection rules aim to protect consumers from misleading commercial claims but not misleading claims about animal treatment specifically. After examining the situation that has led to the proliferation of animal welfare food labels in the European Union, this article analyses the animal welfare food labelling landscape and presents different regulatory pathways to best harmonise consumer information on farm animal welfare.

Climate policy requires a steep and rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which are mainly caused by fossil fuels. Advertising that promotes fossil fuels and other carbon-intensive products undermines this objective. It normalises unsustainable consumption patterns and enables producers of harmful commodities to manipulate public discourse in order to delay or derail the energy transition – for example, by spreading misinformation, deflecting responsibility and promoting false solutions. For these reasons, there are increasing calls for a fossil fuel advertising ban along the lines of the tobacco advertising ban at both the European and the Member State level. This article evaluates the legality of such bans under European law, focusing on legislative competence, fundamental rights and internal market law. It finds that a fossil fuel advertising ban can be assumed to conform to the requirements of European law, especially if it is modelled after the tobacco advertising ban.

No matter how good a smart device may be, it remains useless outside the context of a digital ecosystem. Internet of Things (IoT) environments are possible as long as services and products can interconnect smoothly and exchange data in real time. Therefore, interoperability ranks high in global policy agendas, with the promise of bringing an end to network effects slanted in favour of ecosystem orchestrators. However, recent regulatory initiatives introducing interoperability obligations risk falling short of their intent or even risk generating unintended consequences in the absence of a coherent approach to standardisation. Against this backdrop, focusing on the UK Open Banking experience, this article makes a proposal for workable interoperability in IoT ecosystems aimed at ensuring market contestability without undermining incentives to innovate.

Since the EU Directive (EC) No 128/2009 (SUD) was approved by the European Parliament, the establishment of a general framework aimed at securing the sustainable use of pesticides was laid down, and European Union (EU) Member States adopted National Action Plans in accordance with this Directive. Specifically, for EU Member States, pesticides, objectives and quantitative targets were created. Therefore, the EU Commission provided a methodology for risk assessment as the derivation of two harmonised risk indicators: HRI_1 and HRI_2. The present study focuses on HRI_1, as this can be implemented at the country level. Each EU Member State delivers annual harmonised risk indicators values to the Commission based on calculations using their own data and results. However, only the EU Commission can derive this HRI_1 (concatenated) indicator at the EU level. Therefore, the present study is an attempt to shed some light on the modus operandi used by the EU Commission to compile this HRI_1, and it also aims to clarify these calculations. Data originating from twenty-seven EU Member States were analysed. These data were compared to data published on the EU Commission website over time. Possible virtual developments including the modification and evolution of active substance statuses are envisaged.

The response to the COVID-19 crisis implied an unprecedented involvement of the European Union (EU) executive in public health matters. In June 2020, the Member States agreed upon a joint EU Vaccines Strategy, whereby the European Commission was enabled to negotiate, support and allocate vaccine doses on their behalf. Entailing political and redistributive choices, the Commission’s centralised procurement presents some innovative patterns when compared to traditional EU executive action. This paper will focus on the institutionalisation of such patterns within the legal framework of the Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Authority (HERA). Did EU administrative law offer appropriate tools for this process? Or did the EU merely formalise the procedural and organisational schemes set up during the crisis? Answers to these questions will contribute to a fuller understanding of the administrative dimension of the new European Health Union and shed light on some recent evolutions of the EU administrative system.

High pharmaceutical pricing practices in Europe have been increasingly on the radar of the European Union, academia and civil society as a risk to Member State health budgets. It is therefore hardly surprising that, in recent years, competition authorities have resuscitated the excessive pricing prohibition contained in Article 102(a) TFEU. Focusing on this phenomenon, this piece highlights the diverse ways in which the United Brands test has been applied in pharmaceuticals by conducting a comparative study of the decisional practice of national competition authorities. Several observations and arguments are then derived therefrom, demonstrating that, while difficult (most notably in respect to patent-protected products), competition authorities and courts have established sophisticated ways of determining whether a pharmaceutical price is excessive in the sense of Article 102(a) TFEU. These findings should encourage hesitant competition authorities and private plaintiffs to at least carry out preliminary investigations when they suspect excessive pricing in pharmaceuticals is taking place.

On 8 June 2023, the European Commission published a long-awaited proposal for the establishment of an interinstitutional ethics body, meant to restore the public’s faith in the European Union’s administration following the Qatargate corruption scandal. Alas, the Commission’s proposal outlines a body that lacks investigative and sanctioning powers, has minimal administrative capacity and for the most part relies on the institution’s own policing. Put simply, it falls short of the promises made by the Commission’s President in her 2019 political guidelines, and much shorter of what was expected as a remedy to the European Union’s recent ethics-related scandals. In this short piece, we reflect on the Commission’s proposal for an inter-institutional ethics body in light of the overall ethics framework in the Union and provide a brief analysis of the Commission’s missed opportunity and of what could have been.