Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:17:03.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Assessment in the European Food Safety Regulation: Who is to Decide Whose Science is Better? Commission v. France and Beyond…

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Karolina Szawlowska

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (hereinafter BSE) in Europe has brought about serious tensions and fears – not only among consumers, but also among the national and European authorities responsible for risk management. Faced with the incapacity of the existing system to control the situation, on the one hand, and the need to restore consumers’ confidence on the other, the EU and national regulators felt obliged to repair the weaknesses as soon as possible. However, remedial actions undertaken at the time of the BSE crisis were not always the product of thorough consultations and they were often not well coordinated. Thus, they became a source of disagreement among the various actors in play. The case Commission v. France, which I will examine more closely in this paper, illustrates such a conflict among the national and European scientific authorities. The judgment was delivered in 2001, but the problem of the successful integration of science into the regulatory decision-making process of the EU still remains unsettled. In this paper I will present suggestions as to how the situation could be influenced by the outcomes of recent reforms of European food safety law and the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority.

Type
European & International Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 10 , 01 October 2004 , pp. 1259 - 1274
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See R. Miller, As Germany Comes to Grip with Its Own Mad-Cow Crisis, Where Was the EU?, 2 German Law Journal, No 2 (1 February 2001), at www.germanlawjournal.com.Google Scholar

2 Case C-1/00, Commission v. France, [2001], ECR I-9989.Google Scholar

3 Useful information on the nature of BSE, the BSE crisis and measures taken to control it can be found in a publication by the European Commission, DG XXIV: BSE Guide. Information for consumers. GIS-BSE (96) 7.5 or. (FR), 29.10 1996, available at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biosafety/bse/bse07_en.pdf, as well as in a FAQ section at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biosafety/bse/m03_3_en.pdf.Google Scholar

4 Commission Green Paper on The General Principles of Food Law in the European Union, COM (97) 176 final.Google Scholar

5 They were mostly cases concerning abuse of the common market freedom of movement of goods as well as misuse of safeguard measures by Member States.Google Scholar

6 See E. Vos, EU Food Safety Regulation in the Aftermath of the BSE Crisis, 23 Journal of Consumer Policy 233 (2000); Lafond, F. D., The creation of the European Food Authority. Institutional implications of risk regulation, 10 European Issues 4 (November 2001).Google Scholar

7 For complex analysis of the organization and functioning of the committee structure in the food sector, see, e.g., Shaping European Law and Policy: The Role of Committees and Comitology in the Political Process (R. H. Pedler and G. F. Schaefer eds., 1996); Joerges, C., 'Comitology and the European Model?’ Towards a Recht-Fertigungs-Recht in the Europeanisation Process, in European Governance, Deliberation and the Quest for Democratisation (E. O. Eriksen, C. Joerges and J. Neyer eds., ARENA Report No 02/2003); Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market 501 (C. Joerges and R. Dehousse eds., 2002); Joerges, C., J. Neyer, Transforming Strategic interaction into deliberative problem-solving: European Comitology in the Foodstuffs Sector, 4 Journal of European Public Policy 609 (1997); C. Joerges, E. Vos, EU Committees: Social Regulation, Law and Politics (1999); Maurer, A., Committees in the EU system: A Deliberative Perspective, in European Governance, Deliberation and the Quest for Democratisation 337 (E. O. Eriksen, C. Joerges and J. Neyer eds., ARENA Report No 02/2003); E. Vos, Institutional Frameworks of the Community Health and Safety Regulation. Committees, Agencies and Private Bodies (1999); Vos, E., Reforming the European Commission: What Role to Play for EU Agencies, 37 CMLRev. 1113 (2000).Google Scholar

8 SCF was created on the basis of Commission Decision 74/234/EEC of 16 April 1974 relating to the institution of a Scientific Committee for Food, (1974) OJ L 136/1, later replaced by Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up Scientific Committees in the field of consumer health and food safety, (1997) OJ L 237/18.Google Scholar

9 StCF was set up by Council Decision 69/414/EEC of 13 November 1969 setting up a Standing Committee for Foodstuffs, (1969) OJ L 291/9.Google Scholar

10 ACF was originally established by Commission Decision 75/420/EEC of 26 June 1975, setting up an Advisory Committee on Foodstuffs, (1975) OJ L 182/35.Google Scholar

11 European Parliament, Report on alleged contraventions or maladministartion in the implementation of Community law in relation to BSE, without prejudice to the jurisdiction of the Community and national courts, 7 January 1997, A4-0020/97.Google Scholar

12 Id., at p.5-6.Google Scholar

13 Id., at p.9-11, 37-38, 40-41.Google Scholar

14 Id., at p.10.Google Scholar

15 Id., at p.10-11, 13, 16, 23.Google Scholar

16 Id., at p.16, 23-38.Google Scholar

17 Compare Report on alleged contraventions‥., id., Part A.I.4, as well as E. Vos, EU Food Safety in the Aftermath of the BSE Crisis, supra note 6, at 231-233‥Google Scholar

18 E. Vos, id., at 235-236. After the Amsterdam Amendment, the first sentence of Article 152. 1 EC reads: “A high level of human protecion shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities” (emphasis added). Amendment of Articles 95 and 193 EC follows the same direction.Google Scholar

19 See F. D. Lafond, supra note 6, at 6.Google Scholar

20 Supra note 4‥Google Scholar

21 White Paper on Food Safety COM (1999) 719 final.Google Scholar

22 Id., at p.8-9.Google Scholar

23 Id., at p.14-21.Google Scholar

24 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31/1, 1.2.2002.Google Scholar

25 For further analysis of the influence of the BSE crisis on the development of the European food regulation, see F. D. Lafond, supra note 6; M. Hagenmeyer, Modern food safety requirements – according to EC Regulation No 178/2002, 4 ZLR 443 (2002); Millstone, E., Recent developments in EU food policy: institutional adjustments or fundamental reforms?, 6 ZLR 815 (2000); Chalmers, D., 'Food for Thought': Reconciling European Risks and Traditional Ways of Life, 66 The Modern Law Review 532 (July 2003); Krapohl, S., Risk Regulatoin in the EU between Interests and Expertise – The Case of BSE, 10 Journal of European Public Policy 189 (April 2003); Buonanno, L., et. al, Politics versus Science in the Making of a New Regulatory Regime for Food in Europe, 5 EIoP (2001); E. Randall, Policy and Plans: Formulating a Food Safety and Public Policy Strategy for the Union (2001), available at http://www.policylibrary.com/Essays/RandallEFARisk/EFArisk2.htm.Google Scholar

26 For background information on the nature of the disease as well as some general surveys in it, see WHO Fact Sheet on BSE, at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs113/en/at. Regularly updated numbers of reported BSE cases, by country, are available on the website of the Office International Des Epizooties at: http://www.oie.int/eng/info/en_esb.htm.Google Scholar

27 A summary of the chronology of BSE events in the United Kingdom indicating legal measures taken at the national level is available at the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/chronol.pdf; more detailed infrormation as well as a the full text of the Report of the BSE inquiry are available at http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk.Google Scholar

28 A chronological list of measures taken by the European authorities in order to combat the BSE problem can be found at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/biosafety/bse/bse15_en.pdf.Google Scholar

29 Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, OJ L 78, 1996, p.47.Google Scholar

30 Council Decision 98/256/EC of 16 March 1998 concerning emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, amending Decision 94/474/EC and repealing Decision 96/239/EC, OJ L 113, 1998, p.32.Google Scholar

31 Commission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 November 1998 amending Decision 98/256/EC as regards certain emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, OJ L 328, 1998, p.28.Google Scholar

32 Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch of bovine products under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue of art 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC, OJ L 195, 1999, p.42.Google Scholar

33 JORF of 2 December 1998, p.18169.Google Scholar

34 See http://www.afssa.fr/ftp/afssa/basedoc/a990930.pdf. The English text of the opinion is available at: http://www.afssa.fr/ftp/basedoc/aa19990930.pdf.Google Scholar

35 See Opinion of the panel of experts on transmissible sub-acute spongiform encephalopathies (TSSE) of 30 September 1999, attached to the AFSSA opinion, available at http://www.afssa.fr/ftp/basedoc/aa19990930.pdf, p.5.Google Scholar

36 Full text of the SSC opinion is available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out62_en.pdf.Google Scholar

37 Technical aspects of the reasoning of the opinion of the SSC as well as the opinion of the AFSSA will not be analyzed in detail, because they seem to be outside the scope of this paper.Google Scholar

38 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 20 September 2001 in case C-1/00, Commission v. France, [2001], ECR I-9989.Google Scholar

39 See the judgment, supra note 2, par.88-93. The Commission also raised additional arguments maintaining that in the present case the French Republic had breached Article 28 EC and Article 10 EC as well. Due to the limited scope of this paper, these arguments will not be discussed here, as they are of minor importance for the outcome of the case and in particular, for the main issue of my analysis.Google Scholar

40 Id., at par.94. Article 30 EC allows Member States to introduce prohibition or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy, or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. More on Article 30 EC, see P. Craig and G. de Burca, EU Law. Texts, Cases, Materials 626-636 (2003); J. Steiner and L. Woods, Textbook on European Community Law 239-255 (5th ed. 2003); C. Bernard, The Substantive Law of the EU. The Four Freedoms 64-85 (2004); S. Weatherhill and P. Beaumont, EU Law. The Essential Guide to the Legal Workings of the European Union 525-559 (1999).Google Scholar

41 See the judgment in the case, supra note 2, par.142.Google Scholar

42 See T. Hamoniaux, Principe de precaution et refus de la France de lever l'embargo sur la viande bovin britannique, L'actualite jurisprudentielle, droit administrative 164-169 (Février 2002).Google Scholar

43 See the judgment in the case, supra note 2, par.78.Google Scholar

44 Id., at par.35.Google Scholar

45 Opinion of AG Mischo, supra note 38, par.120-121.Google Scholar

46 In the judicial stage of the Article 226 proceedings the ECJ has full jurisdiction to consider all the issues de novo. It is not just a review of the reasoned opinion. The scope of the proceedings, however, is limited to the infringements specified in it. See T. C. Hartley, The Foundations of European Community Law 315-316, 431 (5th ed. 2003).Google Scholar

47 See, e.g., a discussion in A. Arnull, The European Union and its Court of Justice 38-40 (1999).Google Scholar

48 Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the European Union, [2002], ECR II-3305. For comments on the decision, see K. H. Lauder, The Introduction of the Precautionary Principle into EU Law: a Pyrrhic Victory for Environmental and Public Health Law? Decision–Making under Conditions of Complexity in Multi-Level Political Systems, 40 CMLRev. (2003), C. MacMaolain, Using the precautionary principle to protect human health: Pfizer v. Council, 28 ELRev. (2003), O. Segnana, The Precautionary Principle: New Developments in the Case Law of Court of First Instance, 3 German Law Journal No.10 (1 October 2002), at www.germanlawjournal.com.Google Scholar

49 Case T-70/99, Alpharma Inc. v. Council, [2002], ECR II-3495.Google Scholar

50 Case C-236/01, Monsanto Agricoltura Italiana SpA and Others v. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others, judgment delivered on 9 September 2003, not yet reporter in the ECR.Google Scholar

51 P. Dabrowska, GM Foods, Risk, Precaution and the Internal Market: Did Both Sides Win the day in the Recent Judgment of the European Court of Justice?, 5 German Law Journal No 2 (1 February 2004), at www.germanlawjournal.com.Google Scholar

52 See Randall, supra note 25, p.1.Google Scholar

53 Pfizer, supra note 48. For more deliberation on the issue, see T. Christoforou, The precautionary principle and democratizing expertise: a European legal perspective, 30 Science and Public Policy 205-211 (June 2003); Joerges, C. and Neyer, J., Politics, risk management, World Trade Organisation governance and the limits of legalisation, 30 Science and Public Policy 219-225(June 2003).Google Scholar

54 See Joerges and Neyer, supra note 53, p.220.Google Scholar

55 R. Dehousse, Misfits: EU Law and the Transformation of European Governance, in Good Governance in Europe's Integrated Market, supra note 7, p. 207.Google Scholar

56 See Article 30 of Regulation 178/2002, supra note 24.Google Scholar

57 For details consult Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards of the European Food Safety Authority on the Application of the United Kingdom for Moderate Risk BSE status,(Question No EFSA-Q-2003-013), delivered on 21 April 2004, The EFSA Journal (2004) 55, 1-3 and Report of the Working Group on the application of the United Kingdom for moderate BSE risk status, available at http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/biohaz/biohaz_opinions/426/opinion_biohaz_09_georisk_ej55_report_en1.pdf.Google Scholar