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.

Leticia Bourges

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 15 (2020), Issue 1, Page 18 - 24

Eden Tafesework Geletu, Margherita Paola Poto

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 3, Page 261 - 268

The demand for the utilization of agricultural resources for non-food purposes, such as feedstock, has been on the rise globally in recent times. This article seeks to examine the underlying reasons behind the boom in agricultural crops for biofuel feedstock. Cognizant of this peak in demand, the article aims to show how the right to adequate food is being restrained by large-scale land acquisition as well as conversion for agricultural crop production namely for the purpose of agro-fuels. In the first part, the rationale that has galvanized the demand for biofuels will be explored. In the second part, the restrictions posed on the right to food will be presented. Some concluding remarks complete the article. Keywords: Biofuel; Agrofuel; Land acquisition; Agriculture; Small-scale farmers; Right to food; Green house gases.

Bernd van der Meulen

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 1, Page 29 - 50

The FAO and the WHO have set up a joint food standards programme with the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its core. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has a membership base of its own. It adopts standards by consensus of its member countries, based on the scientific input from risk assessment bodies that also form part of the joint FAO/WHO food standards programme. The purpose of the standards of the Codex Alimentarius is to harmonise national and regional food legislation at a global level. This article explores to what extent the influence of the Codex Alimentarius is actually present in EU food law. To this end, it identifies the major fields of EU food law on the basis of a pre-existing framework for analysis. The article shows that the Codex Alimentarius is present in all these major fields in concepts, methods, principles and rules of conduct for food businesses. Keywords: Codex Alimentarius; EU food law.

Hanspeter Schmidt

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 1, Page 15 - 28

There is a new EU organic food law. It will go into effect as of 2021 and requires deep changes to the practice of organic farmers. It provides for complex rules for dealing with traces of agrochemicals in organic products. Organic farmers are now to draw up and maintain “precautionary measures” against pollution from conventional agriculture. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 introduces a triade of legal consequences for each case where a pesticide trace is reported in an organic food product, however low this may be: (a) an official investigation; (b) a provisional marketing stop; (c) or permanent organic decertification, where the newly required measures to avoid the contamination from conventional organic farming have not been implemented. A new organic trade culture will be needed.

Aline Wisniewski, Anja Buschulte

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 1, Page 6 - 14

Although food fraud has existed for ages it is difficult to estimate the extent of this problem as the number of documented cases is probably only a small fraction of its real dimension. In some cases food fraud can pose a serious risk to public health, as demonstrated by the melamine scandal in China 2008. However, even if there is no direct harm to human health, this form of deliberate fraud can lead to a loss of consumer confidence and economic distortions. Up to now there is unfortunately no legal definition of food fraud, either in the European Union or Germany, that describes this term in detail. Against this background the first part of this article provides an overview of the laws and regulations in Germany and the European Union that are intended to protect consumers against food fraud. For this purpose, a literature search was carried out to identify relevant legal requirements related to food fraud and the authorities responsible for combating this crime. The most important legislations in Germany are the German Food and Feed Code, Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 (GFL) and Regulation (EU) 2017/625. This article examines whether there is a definition of food fraud in Germany or Europe and aims to estimate if the existing legislation is appropriate for protecting the health and interests of consumers effectively.

Aline Wisniewski, Anja Buschulte

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 2, Page 102 - 117

Although food fraud has existed for ages it is difficult to estimate the extent of this problem because the number of documented cases is probably only a small fraction of its real dimension. In some cases food fraud can pose a serious risk to public health, as demonstrated by the melamine scandal in China in 2008. However, even if there is no direct harm to human health, this form of deliberate fraud can lead to the loss of consumers’ confidence and economic distortions. Unfortunately, even today, there is still no legal definition of food fraud either in the European Union or Germany that describes this term in detail. Against this background the first part of this article discussed the laws and regulations for food fraud in Germany and in the European Union. In this second part, the laws and regulations of the most important international trading partners of Germany, such as Brazil, the USA, China and Turkey, are examined more closely showing whether the respective countries have a definition of the term food fraud, whether the term is used explicitly in their laws and regulations and what penalties fraudsters can expect. Since only a small part of the goods can be checked when they are imported into Germany, it is important to ensure that the trading partners have comparable regulations to combat food fraud.

Robert Anton, Basil Mathioudakis, Suwijiyo Pramono, Ekrem Sezik, Surinder Sharma

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 2, Page 132 - 141

Botanicals are used worldwide in food and supplements for their nutritional and physiological effects and have become part of the local and regional cultural heritage. The use of botanicals has evolved from experience over a long period of time, often over centuries. Folk knowledge of this use has been passed on from generation to generation and later been systematically recorded. This information is collectively called ‘traditional use’ and is the largest body of observational evidence in humans available. It is recognised as a valid body of knowledge to support the safe use of botanicals and document their health benefits. This paper describes the experience on how traditional use is accepted as a basis for support of the safety and benefits for health of botanical preparations used in food supplements. It proposes a common basis for the mutual acceptance of the evidence as assessed by expert judgement that may lead to recognition of the safety and benefits of botanicals in different parts of the world. Keywords: Traditional use; botanicals; folk use; systematic use; conditions of use; physiological benefits; safety; food law; supplements.

Patrick Coppens, Francesco Planchenstainer

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 2, Page 152 - 159

The use of nanomaterials in foods is one of the emerging areas for innovation that is addressed by EU Food Law. New applications of nanomaterials require pre-market authorisation under the Novel Foods Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 or, in the case of food additives, under Regulation (EC) 1333/2008. Under the labelling provisions (Regulation (EU) 1169/2011) the presence of engineered nanomaterials needs to be indicated in the labelling of foods. These regulations apply in all EU Member States. Recently, however, controversy has arisen, in particular in France, with a seemingly diverging application of these laws and a legal initiative to ban the use of a food additive (E171 – Titanium Dioxide) based on safety concerns because of the presence of nanoparticles. The paper describes the background and provides a legal analysis of the consistency of these developments with EU legal principles. Keywords: EU Commission; France; Labelling; Novel foods; Food additives; Nanomaterials; Precautionary principle; Titanium dioxide.

Steffen Jakobs, Andreas Hahn

European Food and Feed Law Review, Volume 14 (2019), Issue 5, Page 412 - 429

According to Regulation (EC) 1924/2006, health claims made on foods need an authorisation and the effect must be ‘established by generally accepted scientific data’. The scientific assessment on applications for health claims is the responsibility of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Thus, the Authority plays the crucial role in the scientific acceptance or rejection of health claims. In accordance with Regulation (EC) 353/2008, in order to substantiate a health claim, data from human studies are required to prove the relationship between the consumption of the food/food constituent and the claimed effect. In this context, EFSA considers double-blind randomised controlled trials in humans to be the gold standard. So far, the Authority has not published an exclusive guidance for reporting of human intervention studies in order to present transparent and consistent criteria for these studies. Thus, clear and concrete guidelines for adequately performing such studies are missing, which represents a general problem for applicants. Therefore, based on an evaluation of all scientific opinions on claims according to Article 13, this paper addresses key factors that EFSA requests to report on the design, conduct and statistical analysis of human intervention studies with foods or food constituents for scientific substantiation of health claims. It also shows that EFSA’s work often is neither transparent nor consistent. Keywords: Health claims; EFSA; Food labelling; Human intervention studies; RCTs.