The Summer Academy in Global Food Law and Policy is an established one-week summer program that brings together practitioners, policymakers, industry representatives, and leading academics working in the field of food law and policy. It offers intensive training on the most innovative developments in global food regulation and provides a unique opportunity for professional development and networking in an informal and interdisciplinary setting. By talking, studying, and interacting with food experts from all over the world, participants are able to gain new perspectives into both their own sectors and international regulatory issues. This is achieved by combining traditional classroom instruction with experiential learning opportunities offered by dedicated and distinguished international experts.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Last Chance to Register - Summer Academy in Global Food Law and Policy
The Summer Academy in Global Food Law and Policy is an established one-week summer program that brings together practitioners, policymakers, industry representatives, and leading academics working in the field of food law and policy. It offers intensive training on the most innovative developments in global food regulation and provides a unique opportunity for professional development and networking in an informal and interdisciplinary setting. By talking, studying, and interacting with food experts from all over the world, participants are able to gain new perspectives into both their own sectors and international regulatory issues. This is achieved by combining traditional classroom instruction with experiential learning opportunities offered by dedicated and distinguished international experts.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Foundations of EU Food Law and Policy
“Despite the celebratory mood, the book provides forward-looking views on the future scientific and regulatory challenges facing the Authority. Overall, the Authority emerges as belonging to a balanced, yet improvable, food legal system that deserves permanent scrutiny, guidance and judgment. That is the expectation of 500 million EU citizens, the daily clients of this very system.” Foundations of EU Food Law and Policy - Ten Years of European Food Safety Authority by Alberto Alemanno
Friday, March 01, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
EAACI issues European Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Public Declaration
The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical
Immunology’s (EAACI) calls on European and
national health policy makers to take up the cause of food allergy. Public Declaration forms part of EAACI’s 2012-2013 Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Campaign.
The goal of the campaign is to enhance knowledge of food allergy in the
European community, as well as awareness on the sharp increase of food
allergy and the triggers of anaphylaxis among policy makers and to
educate the public on how to react in case of emergency. Throughout
2013, EAACI, Europe’s largest allergy medical association, will be
reaching out to EU officials, providing recommendations and asking them
to take concrete actions to improve the management and treatment of food
allergies and anaphylaxis. In part -
EAACI aims to challenge certain aspects of current EU food labelling directives, which it feels, are insufficient in preventing the accidental consumption of allergens. Currently, some foods have the label “may contain peanuts” or “may contain milk” but this type of labelling (precautionary labelling) is not sufficiently regulated at the EU level. Labelling is an essential part of food allergy management for the sufferer and has an important impact on how they manage their diets. EAACI believes that the EU should set clear guidelines for labelling foodstuffs for allergens. This includes products which may contain allergen derivatives and should be clearly linked to the name of the allergen to avoid confusion. Additionally, to facilitate readability, EAACI advises that the typeset used to flag allergens should differ from the one used for other ingredientsRead more here. Also available in French, Spanish, Italian and German. | |||||
Monday, January 28, 2013
The Summer Academy in Global Food Law & Policy is an established one-week summer program that brings together practitioners, policymakers, industry representatives, and leading academics working in the field of food law and policy. It offers intensive training on the most innovative developments in global food regulation and provides a unique opportunity for professional development and networking in an informal and interdisciplinary setting. By talking, studying, and interacting with food experts from all over the world, participants are able to gain new perspectives into both their own sectors and international regulatory issues. This is achieved by combining traditional classroom instruction with experiential learning opportunities offered by dedicated and distinguished international experts.Thursday, July 05, 2012
WTO rules against U.S. appeal on country-of-origin labeling
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)The WTO Appellate Body that upheld an earlier WTO finding that mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) for livestock violates U.S. WTO obligations. Under the U.S. COOL law in force since March 2009, food processors must identify the nations from which cattle, hogs, and some fresh produce originate. Canada and Mexico said the provisions impose unjust costs on their exports, reducing their competitiveness. WTO judges agreed on Nov. 18 that beef and pork from Canada and Mexico were treated less favorably than the same U.S. products. From the WTO summary:
In its analysis under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that the COOL measure has a detrimental impact on imported livestock because its recordkeeping and verification requirements create an incentive for processors to use exclusively domestic livestock, and a disincentive against using like imported livestock. The Appellate Body found, however, that the Panel's analysis was incomplete because the Panel did not go on to consider whether this de facto detrimental impact stems exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction, in which case it would not violate Article 2.1. In its own analysis, the Appellate Body found that the COOL measure lacks even-handedness because its recordkeeping and verification requirements impose a disproportionate burden on upstream producers and processors of livestock as compared to the information conveyed to consumers through the mandatory labelling requirements for meat sold at the retail level. That is, although a large amount of information must be tracked and transmitted by upstream producers for purposes of providing consumers with information on origin, only a small amount of this information is actually communicated to consumers in an understandable or accurate manner, including because a considerable proportion of meat sold in the United States is not subject to the COOL measure's labeling requirements at all. Accordingly, the detrimental impact on imported livestock cannot be said to stem exclusively from a legitimate regulatory distinction, and instead reflects discrimination in violation of Article 2.1. For these reasons, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding under Article 2.1.
In its analysis under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, the Appellate Body found that the Panel properly identified the objective of the COOL measure as being “to provide consumer information on origin”. The Appellate Body found, however, that the Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article 2.2. This was because the Panel appeared to have considered, incorrectly, that a measure could be consistent with Article 2.2 only if it fulfilled its objective completely or exceeded some minimum level of fulfillment, and to have ignored its own findings, which demonstrated that the COOL measure does contribute, at least to some extent, to achieving its objective. The Appellate Body therefore reversed the Panel's finding that the COOL measure is inconsistent with Article 2.2, but was unable to determine whether the COOL measure is more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective within the meaning of Article 2.2.The appellate body ruling is available here.
Monday, June 25, 2012
CANADA Updates to the food labelling and advertising information
Item | Nature of Changes | Date |
Compliance and Enforcement of Gluten-Free Claims | Posted information on Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Compliance and Enforcement of Gluten-Free Claims | June 2012 |
Consultation on the Guidelines for Highlighted Ingredients and Flavours | Posting of the Guidelines for Highlighted Ingredients and Flavours for public comments | June 2012 |
Origin Claims Information | Consolidated information on Origin Claims and provided additional information on the use of voluntary multiple country of origin statements | May 2012 |
Country of Origin Labelling Information | To provide information on country of origin labelling requirements, a new webpage on Country of Origin Labellinghas been added | May 2012 |
"Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" Labelling Information | Consolidated information on "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" Labelling including the Guidelines for "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" Claims | May 2012 |
Labelling of Genetically Engineered Foods in Canada Factsheet | Consolidated the previous two factsheets on the labelling of genetically engineered foods and voluntary labelling of products of genetic engineereing into one factsheet called Labelling of Genetically Engineered Foods in Canada | May 2012 |
Food Irradiation Information | Consolidated information on Food Irradiation | May 2012 |
Method of Production Information | Consolidated information on claims and statements related toMethod of Production and provided additional guidance on the use of "Halal" claims | May 2012 |
Legibility and Location of Labelling Information | Consolidated information on Legibility and Location of Labelling Information and provided additional guidance on the legibility and location requirements for mandatory and voluntary labelling information on food labels | April 2012 |
Date Markings Information | Consolidated information on Date Markings and provided additional guidance on the date marking requirements for foods including shipping containers and modified atmosphere packaged foods | April 2012 |
Bilingual Labelling Information | Consolidated information on Bilingual Labelling and provided additional guidance on bilingual labelling of voluntary information and the exemption from bilingual labelling for local foods | April 2012 |
Results from Web Questionnaire | Posting of the Results from the Web Questionnaire | April 2012 |
Chapter 6 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising | Addition of Barley Beta-Glucan Concentrate (partially hydrolysed) BarlivTM Barley Betafiber to Table 6-12 | February 2012 |
Consultation on Wine Labelling | Posting of the Consultation on Wine Labelling for public comments | January 2012 |
Thursday, June 07, 2012
EFSA Refute France's Justification for Ban on GM Maize Variety
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Food Law
Short Course & Seminar
|
||||||||
Michigan
State University - East Lansing, Michigan
The
program consists of two courses, a U.S. food law short course, and a
food regulation current issues seminar. Participants may choose to take
one or both. The courses are offered in a collegial, intimate learning
environment.
U.S.
Food Law Short Course
July 16-17 (Monday-Tuesday) 2012
The
U.S. Food Law Short Course is designed as an introduction to U.S. food
laws and regulations for professionals in the field. It is well suited
for those new to the field but also comprehensive enough on the
essential elements of food law to provide a refresher course for the
experienced professional.
Food Regulation Current Issues Seminar July 18-19 (Wednesday-Thursday) 2012
The
Food Regulation Current Issues Seminar provides practical education on
current food legal and regulatory issues. The topics cover cutting edge
issues of food regulation, involving FDA, USDA, advertising, and global
issues. Speakers from the legal, government, food industry, and
academic professions will present practical food safety and food law
information and case studies.
For
more information, click
here
or Register Online
Learn more about IFLR at: www.IFLR.msu.edu or call (517) 355-8295
Institute
for Food Laws and Regulation
Michigan State University, 139 G.M. Trout Building, East Lansing, MI 48824 |
||||||||
Subscribe to the IFLR mailing list
Friday, May 18, 2012
FDA to Convene a FSMA Public Meeting on International Capacity Building with Respect to Food Safety
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) Public Meeting on International Capacity Building with Respect to Food Safety. The meeting will be held on June 19, 2012, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, at the L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, DC. Read more information on the FSMA International Capacity Building Public Meeting.
For more information on FDA's Food Safety Modernization Act, visit http://www.fda.gov/fsma.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
2nd HEC Paris Workshop on Regulating Lifestyle Risks - Call for Papers
Call For Papers
2nd HEC Paris Workshop on Regulation
Regulating Lifestyle Risks in Europe: The Case of Alcohol, Tobacco and Unhealthy Diets HEC Paris, 27 and 28 September 2012
In September 2011, the UN General Assembly declared that the global burden and threat of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) constituted one of the major challenges for development in the twenty-first century: in 2008, 36 of the 57 million deaths globally (63%) were attributed to NCDs, including cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases and diabetes. By recognizing NCDs as largely preventable, it urged the international community to take action at global, regional and national levels to prevent and control their surge. To this end it recommended the adoption of a 'regulatory mix' of multi-sectoral, cost-effective, population-wide interventions in order to reduce the impact of the common NCD risk factors, namely tobacco use, harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diets and lack of physical activity. Yet how to respond to the growing incidence of NCDs is a major source of complexities in risk analysis and regulatory decision-making: the conditions in which people live, poverty, uneven distribution of wealth, lack of education, rapid urbanization and population ageing, as well as the economic, social, gender, political, behavioral and environmental determinants of health are all contributory factors to the prevalence of NCDs. At the same time, the legitimacy, the effectiveness as well as the design of any regulatory intervention aimed at promoting healthier lifestyle remainhighly contested.
The European Union has recently recognized the growing impact of NCDs on the EU's economy and the well-being of its citizens and has consequently started to develop policies intended to tackle the four main factors to which they are linked. Nevertheless, if common themes emerge between the different EU policies intended to promote healthier lifestyles, no attempt has yet been made to systematize them.
We therefore propose to hold a two-day workshop with selected speakers and discussants to identify horizontal, common themes and determine whether the lessons learned in relation to each area of EU intervention may be transposed to the others. More generally, this workshop will offer an opportunity for researchers (PhD students, post-docs, researchers and established academics), policy makers and other stakeholders to reflect on the role which the European Union should play in promoting healthier lifestyles, in light of the moral, philosophical, legal and political challenges associated with the regulation of individual choices. Special attention will be paid to the role that the relevant industries may realistically be called to play in tackling the rising tide of NCDs.
THEMES: The questions the workshop will focus on include (but are not limited to):
- the role of the EU in promoting healthier lifestyle and how powers should be shared between the EU and its Member States in public health matters;
- the role of consumer information, taxation, reformulation and marketing restrictions with regard to tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food in promoting healthier lifestyles and their impact on the EU internal market;
- the international role the EU can/should play and its relationship with the World Health Organization and other international organizations, as a result of the conclusion of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the 2004 WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health and the 2007 WHO Global Strategy to Reduce Harmful Use of Alcohol;
- identification of the drivers behind the emergence of an EU lifestyle policy: is there an economic case for regulating lifestyle health risk determinants?
- the role of the EU impact assessment system in the preparation of legislative proposals and rule-making;
- the role played by the principles of transparency, consultation, and proportionality in ensuring that the legitimate interests of key stakeholders are sufficiently taken into account;
- the role of various stakeholders in supporting healthier lifestyles, including the role of the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health and the EU Alcohol and Health Forum;
- the assessment of different policy initiatives to determine the most appropriate forms of intervention (statutory regulation, self-regulation, co-regulation, nudges) in relevant policy areas;
- the challenge of integrating the findings of behavioral research into lifestyle policy-making, in particular the potential role and legitimacy of nudge-inspired measures in changing individual behavior and establishing social norms;
- the extent to which tobacco control may represent a blueprint for the regulation of lifestyle risks in the EU; - what the specific characteristics of EU regulation are that make problems easier or harder to solve than at national level;
- the extent to which the particular vulnerability of children requires a targeted regulatory intervention;
- the role the right to health and other fundamental rights should play in the debate;
- the impact of lifestyle regulation policies on the IP system, such as trademarks, and technological innovation, such as e-cigarettes, food reformulation and food supplements;
- the extent to which it is beneficial and justified to talk about an emerging EU lifestyle policy;
- the constraints imposed by the WTO Agreements to the emergence of a EU lifestyle regulation policy.
ORGANISERS:
- Alberto Alemanno, Associate Professor of Law at HEC Paris and Editor of the European Journal of Risk Regulation
- Amandine Garde, Senior Lecturer in Law and Director of the Durham European Law Institute, Durham University
EVENT: The event will consist of a two-day workshop to be held at HEC Paris Campus on 27 and 28 September 2012. The workshop is supported by the Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law & Risk Regulation as well as by the HEC Paris Foundation.
OUTCOMES: It is anticipated that the papers presented at the workshop will form the basis of an edited collection.
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Please submit an abstract of between 300 and 500 words, including a title, to Alberto Alemanno, alemanno@hec.fr and Amandine Garde, amandine.garde@durham.ac.uk by Tuesday 22nd May 2012.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
EU Law Course on iTunes U
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
U.S. seeks WTO consultations with India for banning U.S. poultry
United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced that the U.S. Government is requesting consultations with the Government of India under the dispute settlement provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning India's prohibition on certain American agricultural exports, including poultry meat and chicken eggs. India claims that this trade ban is aimed at preventing avian influenza, but it has not provided scientific evidence in line with international standards on avian-influenza control.
Ambassador Kirk said, "India's ban on U.S. poultry is clearly a case of disguising trade restrictions by invoking unjustified animal health concerns."
Consultations are the first step in the WTO dispute settlement process and parties are encouraged to agree to a solution at this stage. If the matter is not resolved through consultations, the United States may request the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel.
Since at least February of 2007, India has formally banned imports of various agricultural products from the United States, supposedly to prevent outbreaks of avian influenza in India. India instituted this ban even though the United States has not had an outbreak of High Pathogenic Avian Influenza ("HPAI") since 2004. In addition, international standards for avian-influenza control do not support the imposition of import bans due to detections of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI), the only kind of AI found in the United States since 2004.
The WTO's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("SPS Agreement") explicitly recognizes that WTO Members have the right to adopt regulations to protect human, animal, or plant life or health. However, the SPS Agreement also requires WTO Members to take certain steps to ensure that such regulations are not merely a cover for protectionism. India appears to have acted inconsistently with its WTO obligations in this case. In particular, India's ban does not appear to be supported by scientific evidence or a valid risk assessment.
Monday, February 27, 2012
2012 Law & Science Young Scholars Informal Symposium and Prize
Alessandra Malerba: alessandramalerba87@gmail.com
New Master Degree in Food Safety Law
Wageningen University is offering a new 2-year MSc Food Safety with specialisation in Food Law. The degree focuses on the legal aspects of food safety and food safety management.
Friday, January 06, 2012
French authorities approve soda tax legislation
Friday, December 02, 2011
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act publication translated
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
EU passes mandatory nutrition labeling regulation
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Symposium: The Role of Public and Private Regulation in Detecting and Responding to Foodborne Disease Outbreaks
Friday, October 14, 2011
US businesses face rude shock as EU health claims laws loom
US companies need to get up to speed with European Union health claim changes or face big hits on existing trade or missed opportunities, according to the chief of a leading UK supplements group.
![Horsemeat Scandal [Infographic]](http://www.foodsafety.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/infographic-horsemeat.jpg)



