Assessing the Relative Influence and Efficacy of Public and Private Food Safety Regulation Regimes: Comparing Codex and Global G.A.P. Standards.

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q4 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Food and drug law journal Pub Date : 2017-01-01
Sam F Halabi, Ching-Fu Lin
{"title":"Assessing the Relative Influence and Efficacy of Public and Private Food Safety Regulation Regimes: Comparing Codex and Global G.A.P. Standards.","authors":"Sam F Halabi,&nbsp;Ching-Fu Lin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An extensive global system of private food regulation is under construction, one that exceeds conventional regulation thought of as being driven by public authorities like FDA and USDA in the U.S. or the Food Standards Agency in the UK. Agrifood and grocer organizations, in concert with some farming groups, have been the primary designers of this new food regulatory regime. These groups have established alliances that compete with national regulators in complex ways. This article analyzes the relationship between public and private sources of food safety regulation by examining standards adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a food safety organization jointly run by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization and GlobalG.A.P., a farm assurance program created in the late 1990s by supermarket chains and their major suppliers which has now expanded into a global certifying coalition. While Codex standards are adopted, often as written, by national food safety regulators who are principal drivers of the standard setting process, customers for agricultural products in many countries now demand evidence of GlobalG.A.P. certification as a prerequisite for doing business This article tests not only the durability and strength of private sector standard setting in the food safety system, but also the desirability of that system as an alternative to formal, governmental processes embodied, for our purposes, in the standards adopted by Codex. In many cases, official standards and GlobalG.A.P. standards clash in ways that implicate not only food safety but the flow of agricultural products in the global trading system. The article analyzes current weaknesses in both regimes and possibilities for change that will better reconcile the two competing systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":12282,"journal":{"name":"Food and drug law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food and drug law journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An extensive global system of private food regulation is under construction, one that exceeds conventional regulation thought of as being driven by public authorities like FDA and USDA in the U.S. or the Food Standards Agency in the UK. Agrifood and grocer organizations, in concert with some farming groups, have been the primary designers of this new food regulatory regime. These groups have established alliances that compete with national regulators in complex ways. This article analyzes the relationship between public and private sources of food safety regulation by examining standards adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a food safety organization jointly run by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization and GlobalG.A.P., a farm assurance program created in the late 1990s by supermarket chains and their major suppliers which has now expanded into a global certifying coalition. While Codex standards are adopted, often as written, by national food safety regulators who are principal drivers of the standard setting process, customers for agricultural products in many countries now demand evidence of GlobalG.A.P. certification as a prerequisite for doing business This article tests not only the durability and strength of private sector standard setting in the food safety system, but also the desirability of that system as an alternative to formal, governmental processes embodied, for our purposes, in the standards adopted by Codex. In many cases, official standards and GlobalG.A.P. standards clash in ways that implicate not only food safety but the flow of agricultural products in the global trading system. The article analyzes current weaknesses in both regimes and possibilities for change that will better reconcile the two competing systems.

评估公共和私人食品安全监管制度的相对影响和效力:比较法典标准和全球G.A.P.标准。
一个广泛的全球私人食品监管体系正在建设中,它超越了传统的由美国食品药品监督管理局和美国农业部或英国食品标准局等公共机构推动的监管。农业食品和杂货商组织与一些农业团体合作,一直是这种新的食品监管制度的主要设计者。这些集团建立了联盟,以复杂的方式与国家监管机构竞争。本文通过考察食品法典委员会(Codex Alimentarius Commission)采用的标准,分析了公共和私人来源的食品安全监管之间的关系。Codex Alimentarius委员会是由联合国粮食及农业组织(fao)、世界卫生组织(who)和globalg . a.p.共同管理的食品安全组织。这是一个由连锁超市及其主要供应商在20世纪90年代末创建的农场保证计划,现在已扩展为一个全球认证联盟。虽然食品法典标准通常由国家食品安全监管机构(标准制定过程的主要推动者)按书面形式采用,但许多国家的农产品客户现在要求提供globalg . a.p.的证据。这篇文章不仅测试了食品安全体系中私营部门标准制定的持久性和强度,而且还测试了该体系作为正式政府程序的替代方案的可取性,就我们的目的而言,这些程序体现在食品法典委员会采用的标准中。在许多情况下,官方标准和globalg . a.p.。标准的冲突不仅涉及食品安全,还涉及农产品在全球贸易体系中的流动。本文分析了两种制度目前的弱点,以及更好地调和这两种竞争制度的变革可能性。
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
Food and drug law journal
Food and drug law journal 医学-食品科技
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: The Food and Drug Law Journal is a peer-reviewed quarterly devoted to the analysis of legislation, regulations, court decisions, and public policies affecting industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and related agencies and authorities, including the development, manufacture, marketing, and use of drugs, medical devices, biologics, food, dietary supplements, cosmetics, veterinary, tobacco, and cannabis-derived products. Building on more than 70 years of scholarly discourse, since 2015, the Journal is published in partnership with the Georgetown University Law Center and the O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law. All members can access the Journal online. Each member organization and most individual memberships (except for government, student, and Emeritus members) receive one subscription to the print Journal.
×
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