Skip to content

Author: Chris Downes

  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 2 results.

Managing Post-Brexit UK-EU Food Trade journal article

How Deep Can ‘Deep Regulatory Cooperation’ Be?

Chris Downes

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 15 (2020), Issue 1, Page 35 - 52

The EU and UK have signalled their common aim of deep regulatory cooperation after Brexit. In the area of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that govern food trade, this comprises regulatory discipline that extends beyond existing WTO obligations. While the Theresa May government’s ambition of ‘frictionless trade’ may have been cast aside, minimising new SPS barriers remains essential to the new trading relationship. This article evaluates the prospects of deep EU-UK regulatory cooperation in this domain, outlining the EU’s traditional approach to SPS Chapters in free trade agreements and discussing more ambitious alternatives. It focuses on five of the key SPS negotiating areas identified by the European Commission: approvals and authorisations, trade facilitation, transparency, bilateral consultation mechanisms and the precautionary principle. It identifies areas where advancing ‘WTO-Plus’ obligations appears feasible, and those where deeper cooperation looks less promising. In so doing, it seeks to provide a helpful framework for analysing the upcoming negotiations. Keywords: SPS; Brexit; food law; transparency; equivalence; precautionary principle; FTA; mutual recognition.

Only a Footnote? The Curious Codex Battle for Control of Additive Regulations journal article

Chris Downes

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 7 (2012), Issue 5, Page 232 - 240

In recent years, a controversial footnote has been included in many additive provisions of the Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). Codex members perceive Note 161, referring to national legislation, to exempt domestic measures from the intended disciplines of Codex standards. Its principal advocates, the EU, believe that Note 161 is necessary where the GSFA has failed to take account of basic principles governing the appropriate use of additives. Critics view it to undermine the standardsetting body’s harmonisation goals and give rise to trade barriers. This article explains the upset around Note 161 and examines, in the context of World Trade Organization (WTO) law, whether the footnote has the implications negotiators assume. It also reflects on the EU’s need for recourse to this note to defend its food additive regulations.

  • «
  • 1
  • »

News


Current Issue

Issue 1 / 2024