Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eight Commandments for Securing Competitive Food Supply Chains in the European Union

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Better Business Regulation in a Risk Society

  • 907 Accesses

Abstract

The objective of this chapter is to identify the main legal barriers to the competitiveness of the European food industry and to suggest ways to improve the legal system. Prior studies by Wijnands et al. (2007, 2008) and Poppe et al. 2008) have shown that competitiveness of this industry is under pressure. In the light of the above, we propose a second overhaul of European food law, after the tremendous legal efforts which have been made as a response to food scares at the turn of the century. This reform consists of eight improvements of European food law and aims at empowering stakeholders upstream in food supply chains. These improvements would not only contribute to the competitiveness of the EU food supply chains through alleviation of various forms of administrative burdens, but also restore the power equilibrium between stakeholders within the food chains as well as between businesses and consumers, and reduce the burdens connected to pre-market approval of food and feed and zero-tolerance standards. These focal areas partly overlap, as the improvement of one area may positively or negatively affect another. Within the proposed second overhaul of European food law, the interests of all stakeholders should be considered, while at present consumer concerns seem to eclipse all other existing interests.

Harry Bremmers, Associate professor of Wageningen University, specializing in Law and Economics, where he holds a position at the Law and Governance Group of the Social Sciences Department, the Netherlands

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 3(1) of the General Food Law (GFL), 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. The development of European Food Law has extensively been described in chap. 10 of Chr. Ansell and D. Vogel eds. (2006) by A. Alemanno; also in Van der Meulen and Van der Velde (2008).

  2. 2.

    Global Good Agricultural Practices is a certification scheme which is applied for assessing the “right to deliver” by a significant amount of European retail consortiums.

  3. 3.

    British Retail Consortium Standard.

  4. 4.

    Safe Quality Food Institute Standard.

  5. 5.

    As a representative of a big meat processor argued: “by setting high standards we can cover the requirements of different private and public regulators at one time”. See further Spencer and Humphrey (2009); Stanton and Wolff (Stanton 2009).

  6. 6.

    See Appellate Body Report, European Communities-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R (Jan. 16, 1998) [adopted Feb. 13, 1998; Panel Report, European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, WT/DS26/R/USA (Aug. 18, 1997)]. For a detailed reconstruction and insightful analysis of the dispute, see A. Alemanno (2004); also in: D. Wüger (2002). See also Bremmers et al. (2011) for a legal-economic analysis.

  7. 7.

    Which actually is done in the framework of the WTO, following the adoption of the SPS and TBT Agreements. See Marceau and Trachtman (2002).

  8. 8.

    The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an intergovernmental body jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization (WHO/FAO, both United Nations bodies) to develop international food standards. Over 160 countries are Members, including all EU Member States and, since 2003, the EU itself.

  9. 9.

    Bánáti and Klaus (2010); also: Alemanno (2010). The WHO operates an equivalent system at global level called INFOSAN.

  10. 10.

    For a complete overview, we refer to Van der Meulen and Van der Velde (2008).

  11. 11.

    Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); OJ 30.03.2010 C83-13 (as well as the Euratom Treaty).

  12. 12.

    Article 7(1) of the General Food Law: In specific circumstances where, following an assessment of available information, the possibility of harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists, provisional risk management measures necessary to ensure the high level of health protection chosen in the Community may be adopted, pending further scientific information for a more comprehensive risk assessment. See Szajkowska (2012).

  13. 13.

    Proportionality is a condition to precaution: “measures adopted shall be proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than is required …” (Article 7(2) GFL).

  14. 14.

    See for instance Schumpeter, J.A., The Theory of Economic Development. New York, Oxford University Press, 1934, as cited in Aghion and Howitt (1992).

  15. 15.

    Extensively addressed in Bremmers et al. (2008).

  16. 16.

    Ph. Hampton (2005).

  17. 17.

    An exception is Regulation (EC) 178/2002 addressing legislators in a way usually reserved to directives.

  18. 18.

    H.J. Bremmers (2010).

  19. 19.

    The contributors have been involved into two subsequent competitiveness studies under the authorships of Jo Wijnands (Wijnands et al. 2007) and Krijn Poppe (Poppe et al. 2008).

  20. 20.

    Part of the “hygiene package” which consists of Regulations (EC) 852, 853 and 854(2004).

  21. 21.

    Labelling means according to the Labelling Directive 2000/13 Article 1 (3) a: any words, particulars, trademarks, brand name, pictorial matter or symbol relating to a foodstuff and placed on any packaging, document, notice, label, ring or collar accompanying or referring to such foodstuff.

  22. 22.

    COM 2008(40).

  23. 23.

    Some exceptions apply, for instance if a nutrition claim is made or added vitamins and/or minerals are indicated on the package.

  24. 24.

    Which would violate Articles 8 and 16 of the General Food Law.

  25. 25.

    See Article 35 of the proposal COM(2008) 40.

  26. 26.

    See in this respect animal by-products Regulation (EC) 999/2001.

  27. 27.

    The situation is comparable to shadow pricing; in this case, abundant available assets have a shadow price of zero. Only factors limiting output are rewarded. Processors are abundantly available and therefore are not rewarded for their efforts adequately.

  28. 28.

    Council Directive 85/374/EEC, art. 1.

  29. 29.

    See Porter (1985); cited in numerous publications.

  30. 30.

    Cf. “Ecorys” report (2010) on Competitiveness of the European Meat Industry, par. 2.5.

  31. 31.

    Cf. Poppe et al. (2008).

  32. 32.

    See Article 18 of the GFL.

  33. 33.

    See extensively Van der Meulen (2009).

  34. 34.

    http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15_sps.pdf.

  35. 35.

    SPS Committee.

  36. 36.

    As Burdock and Carabin (2004) express it: “the self-determination of safety and regulatory compliance in an otherwise stringently regulated venue”.

  37. 37.

    See Van der Meulen (2009).

  38. 38.

    Maximum residue limits for veterinary drugs in foodstuffs of animal origin.

  39. 39.

    Pesticides regime, Reg. (EC) No. 396/2005.

  40. 40.

    Lelieveld and Keener (2007) at page S15, citing Paracelsus (1493–1541): “all substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy”.

  41. 41.

    See extensive evidence in: Salverda et al. (2008), also in France, UK/Germany etc. from the same publisher.

References

  • Aghion, Ph, Howitt, P (1992) A model of Economic Growth. Econometrica 60 (2), 323–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno, A (2004) Judicial Enforcement of the WTO Hormones ruling within the European Community: Toward an EC Liability for the non-implementation of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions. Harvard International Law Journal 547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alemanno, A (2010) Solving the Problem of Scale - The European approach to import safety and import security concerns. In: Coglianese C, Finkel A, Zahring D (eds) Import Safety- Regulatory Governance in the Global Economy, University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, Chr., Vogel, D. (2006) What’s the beef? The contested governance of food safety. MIT, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avermaete, T, Viaene, J (2002) On innovation and meeting Regulation. Druid Summer Conference on “Industrial Dynamics of the New and Old Economy - who is embracing whom?” Copenhagen/ Elsinore 6-8 June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bánáti, D, Klaus, B (2010) 30 Years of the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. EFFL 01-2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergès-Sennou, F, Bontems, P, Réquillart, V 2004 Economics of Private Labels: A survey of Literature Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 3, Vol 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremmers, H, Van der Meulen, B, Poppe, K, Wijnands, J (2008) Administrative burdens in the European food industry - with special attention to the dairy sector. LEI, The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremmers HJ, Meulen BMJ van der, Wijnands H M, Poppe K J (2011) A legal-economic analysis of international diversity in food legislation: content and impact. European Food and Feed Law Review 6, 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bremmers H J (on behalf of Ecorys, Rotterdam) (2010) Study on the Competitiveness of the European Meat Processing Industry. Services in the context of the Framework Contract on Sectoral Competitiveness (ENTR/06/054), par. 2. 5. Directorate-General Enterprise & Industry of the European Union, Brussels, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunte, F, Van Galen M van, de Winter M, Dobson O, Bergès-Sennou F, Monier-Dilhan S, Juhásh A, Moro D, Sckokai P, Soregaroli C, van der Meulen B, Szajkowska A (2011) The impact of private labels on the competitiveness of the European food supply chain. European Commission, Enterprise and Industry, European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdock, G A, Carabin, I G (2004) Generally recognized as safe (GRAS): history and description. Toxicology Letters 150, 3–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CIAA (2010) Data & Trends of the European Food and Drink Industry 2010 Available at: http://www ciaabe/asp/documents/detailed_doc asp?doc_id = 951

  • DG Sanco Labelling: competitiveness, consumer information and better regulation for the EU A DG SANCO Consultative Document, February 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairman, R, Yapp, C (2005) Enforced self-regulation, prescription, and conceptions of compliance within small businesses: the impact of enforcement. Law and Policy 27, 491–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, Ph (2005) Reducing administrative burdens: effective inspection and enforcement. Report for HM Treasury Available at: www hm-treasury gov uk/hampton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lelieveld, H, Keener, L (2007) Global harmonization of food regulations and legislation – the Global Harmonization Initiative. Trends in Food Science & Technology 18, S15–S19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marceau, G, Trachtman, J P (2002) The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreement, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Journal of World Trade, 36, 811–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meulen B van der (ed) (2009) Reconciling food law to competitiveness. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulen, B. van der (2010) The Function of Food Law. On the objectives of food law, legitimate factors and interests taken into account, EFFL 2, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulen B van der, Velde, M van der (2008) European Food Law Handbook. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulen B van der (ed) (2011) Private Food Law. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijsen, A F M (2003) Dansen met de Octopus - Een bestuurskundige visie op informatieverplichtingen van het bedrijfsleven in de sociale rechtsstaat. Eburon, Delft, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogus, A (1992) Information, error costs and regulation. International Review of Law and Economics 12, 411–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppe, KJ, Wijnands, JHM, Bremmers, HJ, Meulen, B MJ van der, Tacken, GML (2008) Food legislation and competitiveness in the EU food industry- Case studies in the dairy industry. The Hague/Wageningen UR/LEI (EU Report on behalf of DG Enterprise and Industry ref. no. ENTR/2007/020) - ISBN 9789279103).

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salverda W, Klaveren, M van, Van der Meer, M (2008) Low-wage work in The Netherlands. Russell Sage Foundation, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, H, Humphrey, J 2009 The Impact of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and Public Standard-Setting Processes” Paper prepared for FAO/WHO, Alinorm09/32/9D-Part II, May 2009, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, G, Wolff, Chr. Private Voluntary Standards and the World Trade organization (WTO), Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Available at: http://www dfid gov uk/R4D//PDF/Outputs/EcoDev/60506-fp16 pdf

  • Szajkowska, Anna (2009) From mutual recognition to mutual scientific opinion? Constitutional framework for risk analysis in EU food safety law, Food Policy 34, 529–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szajkowska, Anna (2011) Different actors, different factors: On the discretion in EU multi-level food safety governance to base food safety decisions on science and other legitimate factors, European Journal of Risk Regulation 4, 523–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szajkowska, Anna (2012) Regulating food law. Risk analysis and the precautionary principle as general principles of EU food law. Wageningen Academic Publishers, the Netherlands.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijnands, JHM, Bremmers, HJ, Van der Meulen BMJ, Poppe, KJ (2008) An economic and legal assessment of the EU Food Industry’s competitiveness. Agribusiness 24-4, 417–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijnands, JHM, Van der Meulen, BMJ, Poppe, KJ (2007) Competitiveness of the European food industry - An economic and legal assessment. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/food/files/competitiveness_study_en.pdf

  • Wüger, D (2002) The Implementation Phase in the Dispute Between the EC and the United States on Hormone-Treated Beef. Law & Pol’y Int’l Bus, 777.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chair of Law & Governance Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Bernd van der Meulen & Harry Bremmers

Authors
  1. Bernd van der Meulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harry Bremmers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernd van der Meulen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jouy-en-Josas, 78351, France

    Alberto Alemanno

  2. Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands

    Frank den Butter

  3. Schoonhoven, 2871 PM, Netherlands

    André Nijsen

  4. Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

    Jacopo Torriti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van der Meulen, B., Bremmers, H. (2012). Eight Commandments for Securing Competitive Food Supply Chains in the European Union. In: Alemanno, A., den Butter, F., Nijsen, A., Torriti, J. (eds) Better Business Regulation in a Risk Society. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4406-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation