Has Mutual Recognition in the EU Failed?—A Legal-Empirical Analysis on the Example of Food Supplements Containing Botanicals and Other Bioactive Substances

IF 1.4 Q3 BUSINESS
R. Warda, K. Purnhagen, M. Molitorisová
{"title":"Has Mutual Recognition in the EU Failed?—A Legal-Empirical Analysis on the Example of Food Supplements Containing Botanicals and Other Bioactive Substances","authors":"R. Warda, K. Purnhagen, M. Molitorisová","doi":"10.1007/s10603-024-09571-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The European Union lacks comprehensive legislation pertaining to food supplements containing botanical or bioactive substances other than nutrients, resulting in disparate regulatory frameworks among European Member States. Previous studies predominantly focused on the doctrinal analysis of these diverse regulations at both European and national levels, offering limited insights into their practical implementation by governing bodies. This research endeavours to scrutinize administrative practices governing legislation on food supplements featuring botanical or other bioactive constituents, which are subject to varying approaches across Member States. Employing a combination of doctrinal and empirical legal research methodologies, this approach involved a meticulous examination of the regulatory landscape governing food supplements at both EU and Member State levels. Simultaneously, an empirical investigation, conducted through expert interviews, aimed to elucidate whether discrepancies among national legal systems translate into discernible variations in the operational strategies of competent authorities. Additionally, this empirical inquiry shed light on the efficacy of specific EU directives aimed at harmonizing food supplement regulations at the national level. These findings delineate a fragmented regulatory environment for botanical and bioactive food supplements across Member States. Noteworthy disparities were observed not only in national legislative frameworks but also in the enforcement practices of regulatory authorities. Union-level governance efforts in particular by adopting a mutual recognition approach to mitigate fragmentation proved ineffective. Consequently, this research underscores an urgent imperative to expedite the harmonization of regulations governing botanicals and other bioactive substances present in food supplements across the European Union.</p>","PeriodicalId":47436,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-024-09571-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The European Union lacks comprehensive legislation pertaining to food supplements containing botanical or bioactive substances other than nutrients, resulting in disparate regulatory frameworks among European Member States. Previous studies predominantly focused on the doctrinal analysis of these diverse regulations at both European and national levels, offering limited insights into their practical implementation by governing bodies. This research endeavours to scrutinize administrative practices governing legislation on food supplements featuring botanical or other bioactive constituents, which are subject to varying approaches across Member States. Employing a combination of doctrinal and empirical legal research methodologies, this approach involved a meticulous examination of the regulatory landscape governing food supplements at both EU and Member State levels. Simultaneously, an empirical investigation, conducted through expert interviews, aimed to elucidate whether discrepancies among national legal systems translate into discernible variations in the operational strategies of competent authorities. Additionally, this empirical inquiry shed light on the efficacy of specific EU directives aimed at harmonizing food supplement regulations at the national level. These findings delineate a fragmented regulatory environment for botanical and bioactive food supplements across Member States. Noteworthy disparities were observed not only in national legislative frameworks but also in the enforcement practices of regulatory authorities. Union-level governance efforts in particular by adopting a mutual recognition approach to mitigate fragmentation proved ineffective. Consequently, this research underscores an urgent imperative to expedite the harmonization of regulations governing botanicals and other bioactive substances present in food supplements across the European Union.

欧盟互认失败了吗?--以含有植物和其他生物活性物质的食品补充剂为例进行的法律-经验分析
欧盟缺乏与含有植物或生物活性物质(营养素除外)的食品补充剂相关的全面立法,导致欧洲各成员国之间的监管框架不尽相同。以往的研究主要集中在欧洲和国家层面对这些不同法规的理论分析,对管理机构的实际执行情况了解有限。本研究试图对各成员国采用不同方法对含有植物或其他生物活性成分的食品补充剂进行立法的行政实践进行审查。本研究采用理论与实证相结合的法律研究方法,对欧盟和各成员国有关食品补充剂的监管情况进行了细致的研究。同时,通过专家访谈进行实证调查,旨在阐明国家法律体系之间的差异是否转化为主管当局运作策略上的明显差异。此外,这项实证调查还揭示了欧盟旨在协调国家层面食品补充剂法规的具体指令的效力。这些研究结果表明,各成员国对植物和生物活性食品补充剂的监管环境支离破碎。值得注意的差异不仅体现在国家立法框架上,还体现在监管机构的执法实践中。事实证明,联盟一级的治理努力,特别是通过采用相互承认的方法来缓解分散状况的努力是无效的。因此,这项研究强调,当务之急是加快协调欧盟各国对食品补充剂中的植物药和其他生物活性物质的监管。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
8.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Journal of Consumer Policy is a refereed, international journal which encompasses a broad range of issues concerned with consumer affairs. It looks at the consumer''s dependence on existing social and economic structures, helps to define the consumer''s interest, and discusses the ways in which consumer welfare can be fostered - or restrained - through actions and policies of consumers, industry, organizations, government, educational institutions, and the mass media. The Journal of Consumer Policy publishes theoretical and empirical research on consumer and producer conduct, emphasizing the implications for consumers and increasing communication between the parties in the marketplace. Articles cover consumer issues in law, economics, and behavioural sciences. Current areas of topical interest include the impact of new information technologies, the economics of information, the consequences of regulation or deregulation of markets, problems related to an increasing internationalization of trade and marketing practices, consumers in less affluent societies, the efficacy of economic cooperation, consumers and the environment, problems with products and services provided by the public sector, the setting of priorities by consumer organizations and agencies, gender issues, product safety and product liability, and the interaction between consumption and associated forms of behaviour such as work and leisure. The Journal of Consumer Policy reports regularly on developments in legal policy with a bearing on consumer issues. It covers the integration of consumer law in the European Union and other transnational communities and analyzes trends in the application and implementation of consumer legislation through administrative agencies, courts, trade associations, and consumer organizations. It also considers the impact of consumer legislation on the supply side and discusses comparative legal approaches to issues of cons umer policy in different parts of the world. The Journal of Consumer Policy informs readers about a broad array of consumer policy issues by publishing regularly both extended book reviews and brief, non-evaluative book notes on new publications in the field. Officially cited as: J Consum Policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信