International Trade Thesis


Food regulations are necessary in the modern world of increased international trade. There are similarities as well as differences in the food regulations of the EU and those of the U.S. The regulatory powers within the EU are heading towards centralization, although the current system can at best be defined as a decentralized one. Within the decentralized system, food scares have been a common phenomenon. 


In the U.S., there is a coordinated framework for regulating biotechnology, and specific regulatory duties have been clearly defined for various federal agencies. However, the issues that arise in both the EU and the U.S. share many similarities, including increased attention on genetically modified foods, as opposed to conventionally-bred varieties. The main difference with regard to this issue is that whereas EU has already adopted a regulation to approve the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) plant varieties, there is an allowance in the US regulation for member countries to block GM plant varieties if they are ever considered detrimental to the entire nation.

During the first Transatlantic Business Dialogue meeting that was held in Seville, Spain in 1991, a recommendation was put forth to the US-EU intergovernmental Transatlantic Economic Project (TEP) government should promote the task of liberalizing and synchronizing trade regulations within both continents (Henson 1999: 601)[1].

The regulatory system that currently exists in the US does not completely eradicate the problem of food scares (Skogstad 2001:489)[2]. In spite of a centralized regulatory scheme that has a statutory mandate to continually regulate and enforce, it has been virtually impossible to do away with food scares within the U.S. for instance, in September 2006, a warning was issued by the FDA (Federal Drug Administration) against contamination in bagged spinach. Although this warning was issued in good time, the E. coli bacteria went on to cause the death of three people.

In a separate case, which occurred on February 2007, many jars of peanut butter that contained salmonella had to be recalled after about 300 people became ill. Days later, there was a massive recall of dog and cat food, but this was after thousands of pets had already suffered kidney failure, culminating in the deaths of about 16 pets. It took more than one month for this problem to be solved.

Following the problems that were being experienced in the US with regard to food regulations, the debate focused on whether the decentralized EU regulatory framework was better than the centralized U.S system. Ideally, one would expect that a decentralized system would be riddled with more problems and incidents of scares compared to one that is centralized.

Food regulations in the EU: Approaches used

Many incidents have been reported on hazards that transcend national borders, especially within the last few years in countries that are members of the EU. For instance, in 2004, two eagles that had been smuggled from Thailand landed Belgium by plane, in spite of a ban on imports of all types of birds from countries that had been affected by bird flu. These birds, upon inspection, tested positive for the bird flu virus. The effects of the flu on poultry have resulted in the slaughter of thousands of animals in several EU countries, including France, Germany, and England. Given the manner in which food safety regulations are handled within the EU, every country bears its own responsibility to deal with the problem.

The manner in which bird flu continued to spread across Europe shows the extent of decentralization of the EU with regard to food safety regulations. It is prudent to ponder over the question of whether a centralized approach to food safety regulation would have prevented the rapid spread of avian influenza.

It appears that the centralization of all food regulatory powers is a necessary undertaking for purposes of protecting the health of the public in addition to the EU’s future in general sense. However, this has been a controversial subject, not just within the EU but also on the global scene. Centralization mechanisms ought to focus on risk assessment and management. These activities are unavoidable if food safety efforts are to succeed in the EU.

Laws on food regulation in the EU

The most elaborate legislation within the EU is those that dwell on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). For instance, Directive 2001/18 addresses the issue of deliberate release of GMOs into the environment. This is the most critical piece of legislation that governs the way experimental releases and placement efforts are undertaken within the market.

This directive acts as the repealed version of Directive 90/220, which was first enforced during the early 1990s (Josling 1999: 54)[3]. The changes that were made to the directive considerably tightened the ways in which permission for various commercial releases of different transgenic organisms into our environment could be given. This included the limiting of life permits and the requirement of monitoring activities on the effects of these organisms on the environment.

Still, on GM foods, regulation 258/97 dwells on novel foods as well as the ingredients that govern the way GM foods are marketed. This regulation provides the rules that explain the ways in which novel foods ought to be authorized and labeled, including products that contain, consist, or are produced with the use of GMOs.

On the basis of this current legislation, it is a must that all foods that contain detectable levels of GM protein or DNA go through a full authorization procedure prior to placement on the market. Among the requirements explicitly expounded by Directive 90/220 is the way in which these foods should be mandatorily labeled as GMO products.

Elsewhere, Regulation 50/2000 spells out the requirements needed for labeling of all food and food ingredients that contain additives and flavorings sourced from GMOs. According to Regulation 49/2000, only a 1% threshold is allowed for the presence of DNA protein from GM elements in conventional food.

Recent developments in EU food safety laws           


It is always imperative that the difference between a directive and a regulation be appreciated. The measures that are contained in a directive must, within a limited duration from the adoption date, be accorded a legal effect through the promulgation of national legislation in each EU member country. In sharp contrast, a regulation takes immediate effect in all member countries. Although there is no need for national legislation before a regulation is brought into force, customarily, national legislators develop various national regulations that mirror it, thereby providing national enforcement machinery that stipulates penalties for non-compliance.

The current EU food law is overarched by Regulation EC 178/2002, which clearly set out all the general objectives. A key element of this regulation is to maintain responsibility for food and feed businesses, ensuring that only safe food is brought into the market and that all unsafe food is withdrawn from the EU market. Moreover, it provides rules that impose the traceability of foodstuffs, feed ingredients, and animal feed. The regulation also clearly outlines the procedures to be followed in developing a law that handles food emergencies. Since becoming operational in 2002, this regulation has also been instrumental in creating the right environment for rapid communication among member states in matters of dangerous substances in food and feed.

Some of the most recent developments in EU food safety laws address the issue of food labeling. The main labeling legislation is the Council Directive 2000/13/EC, which is the outcome of amending Directive 2007/68/EC and Directive 2003/89/EC. Its main provisions address matters relating to the list of ingredients, the names under which products are sold, the net quantity in the case of all prepackaged foodstuffs, and the number of various ingredients and categories of ingredients in cases where the name or depiction clearly draws attention to such ingredients.

The safety laws also address the issue of minimum durability, particularly in the case of all foodstuffs, which, from the microbiological perspective are considered highly perishable. The issues of any special conditions of use or storage conditions also get attention in these EU food safety laws. Other issues addressed include the business name of the manufacturer, place of origin, true provenance of the foodstuff, and instructions for use. The instructions factor is considered only in those food items where their appropriate use would be impossible in the absence of some instructions. With regard to beverages, the laws stipulate that if the volume of alcohol is more than 1.2%, the actual alcohol strength should be indicated by the volume of the alcohol.

 Recently, requirements for indicating whether there are sweeteners in foods have also been incorporated. Consequently, foods that contain aspartame or have more than 10% of polyols contain warning signs on them. The same case applies to those foods that are exposed to modified atmosphere packing. The allergens that may be present in such foods also have to be declared as provided for in the EU food safety laws.

Furthermore, there are many directives and regulations that affect beef and beef products, products containing caffeine and quinine, GM feeds, GMOs, food supplements, mineral waters, dietetic foods, infant foods, and follow-on foods. The directives have also been extended to cover food ingredients that contain phytosterols, phytosterol, and phytosterol esters (Wenzl 2006: 721)[4].

The DG SANCO launched, in 2003, an evaluation for food labeling legislation with a view to reassess its legal basis and effectiveness, as well as to identify all the needs and expectations of the consumers of today with regard to food information. Emphasis was on the various emerging and anticipated technical and logistical constraints. This culminated in the 2004 proposal for general and nutrition labeling on all pre-packed foods. It also covers all the requirements for foods that are sold non-pre-packed. The proposals were aimed at simplifying and consolidating the existing texts while ensuring that consumers always have enough information to guide them in making informed choices.

Recent food safety laws in the EU also introduce clear principles that facilitate the drawing of a clear borderline between voluntary and mandatory information. The main labeling changes effected by the laws include clarification of all responsibilities on good labeling and improvement of the legibility of the information that is given on the clearly defined size of labeling media. Other aspects include the introduction of the requirement on the application on current rules that govern the specificities of spirits, wine, and beer, in terms of mandatory nutrition labeling on all these products.

Recently, proposals have also been made that clarify the circumstances under which various member states may adopt various national rules on origin labeling. Ideally, almost all the rules on nutritional labeling have been recast with all the provisions for food labeling. If the proposals inherent in the recent EU food safety policy frameworks were to be fully adopted, this would allow for the gradual development of best practices in the way nutrition information is presented, including many alternative forms of expressing this information in relation to graphical forms of presentation or overall daily nutrient requirements.

A new EU food hygiene legislation has been in place since 2006. This legislation has modernized, consolidated, and greatly simplified all previous food hygiene legislation in the EU. The law also touches on appropriate controls in all sections of the food chain, ranging from primary production to the final consumer, or in other words, from ‘farm to fork’. It also clarifies that the primary responsibility of producing food safely lies with food business operators. Moreover, the regulation focuses on various controls on the issues that need to be addressed with regard to public health protection.

Accordingly, all food businesses have to be registered with a competent authority, the choice of which depends on the type of business. Additionally, all food business operators, with the exception of growers and farmers, have to set up, implement and maintain a fixed procedure on the basis of HACCP principles (Bagchi 2008: 85)[5]. The legislation has to be structured in order to ensure that a satisfactory level of public health protection is always in place without having to impose unnecessary burdens on businesses.

            When the new legislation on hygiene started being applied in January 2006, the European Commission (EC) undertook the commitment to provide a report before May 2009 on the experiences of stakeholders and member states with regard to the legislation process. The commission published this report in July 2009. The EC issued letters to interested parties who were interested in seeking a view pertaining to the report.

Since the EU Food Regulations were published in 2004, various transitional measures and implementing regulations supporting the complete application of these regulations have been published. The most recent implementing measures were published in the official journal of the EU on October 20, 2008. Just like with all other EU regulations, it is necessary to amend various national legislations in order to create room for their enforcement.

Policies formulated: a historical perspective

The EU was born out of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, but originally, the treaty led to the formation of the European Community. This new bloc did not have any provision for food regulation since one of the main objectives of the European community was the free movement of foodstuffs.

The need to harmonize laws governing the sale of foodstuffs was transformed into reality when compositional directives were issued in the 1970s. These directives led to the creation of composition standards for various foodstuffs. Thanks to these standards, some ingredients were allowed and others were prohibited. Those that were prohibited were the ones that failed to meet the standards set out by the European Commission.

At that time, the main goal of the directives was to guarantee free movement of food items within all corners of the European common market, rather than merely advancing consumer health. The directives were applicable only to certain ingredients, including chocolate products, preserved milk, jams, and sugars. In the end, this method failed since there were stark differences in the culinary cultures of different member states. These differences made it difficult, if not impossible, for an agreement to be reached on which ingredients’ requirements to be adopted. This situation was made more complicated by the fact that unanimity is always required for directives to be adopted.

The EC developed a new approach in 1985, whereby, instead of harmonizing all the food regulations, efforts were directed towards the use of labeling in order to highlight the differences in production methods and composition. This allowed consumers in making informed decisions. Ideally, the principle of mutual recognition was now in place. This principle required every member state to allow the free movement of goods that had been produced in conformity to the standards that are equivalent to those of other countries.

          The principle of mutual recognition resulted in a horizontal, instead of a vertical, harmonization strategy for food standards. Consequently, the unanimity requirement was replaced by the Single European Act of 1987 with a qualified majority within the European Community. Although the Community adopted additional regulation, it refrained from using too many of them as it was feared that this would jeopardize the goal of a single market and preservation of diversity in culinary culture.

          The food scares that rocked the EU during the 1990s negatively affected the trust that the public had on the bloc’s food safety regulatory system. Examples of these scares include the dioxin contamination in Belgium and the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis in France (Wright 2005: 18)[6]. These scares necessitated various new recommendations on the n need for structural reforms. The first outcome of this turn of events was the issuing of a Green Paper by the European Commission in 1997, which contained the conclusion that the existing food legislation did not meet the needs of producers, consumers, and manufacturers of different food products.

          Calls from professional circles for the EU to put in place a new system for risk assessment intensified in 1999. They demanded that the new risk assessment procedures should be based on the principles of transparency, excellence, and independence. They also recommended the formation of a public and food health agency, as well as increased cooperation among all member states. In 2000, the EU recognized the need for stringent measures to be undertaken for dealing with foodstuffs. The Commission came out with the observation that the best way of ensuring food safety was coming up with an independent European food authority.

          The European Parliament and Council of the EU, in 2002, adopted Regulation No. 178/2002, in which the principles of food law were presented, as well as the creation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Prior to the formation of EFSA, the main aim of EU policy had been to eliminate trade barriers existing in the European market, with the ultimate aim of economic success and not safety assurance. For this goal to be accomplished, each member state had been entrusted with the task of regulating its own foodstuffs.

          In sharp contrast, the EFSA was modeled as an independent agency for providing advice to all member states and EU institutions. Its core task remains to gather data and information and to help anticipate various risks with a view to issuing opinions on all matters pertaining to human nutrition, plant health, animal welfare, and GMOs.

          The EFSA is also a task with the work of giving scientific assessments although it does not deal with any risk management issues. The tasks of risk management are the reserve of Member States and EU institutions. This division of authority poses a major obstacle to efforts towards greater centralization.

Existing institutions: Perspectives and guidelines on food legislation

Food Standards Agency

          The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is the institution that is responsible for representing the UK government on matters of food standards and safety issues in the EU. The agency is also highly active in the agenda on nutrition and health at the European level. The agency is always involved in sector-wide consultations aimed at developing a proportionate, effective, and well-founded European law while taking into account the best principles of regulation.

          The FSA also collaborates closely with various government departments, particularly through regular contact with the European Commission, the European Council, the European Parliament, Standing Committees, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The FSA task of representing the UK has also enabled it to continually share expertise and knowledge with all the other member states and to collaborate with them in matters of Technical Assistance and Information Exchange (TAIEX), a unit within the Commission that is tasked with providing assistance to all new member states.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

EFSA is an independent agency that provides scientific advice to the EU on the existing and emerging risks relating to the food chain. This agency carries out risk assessment activities, but issues relating to risk management are carried out by other bodies. As part of its risk assessment activities, EFSA is responsible for producing scientific advice and opinions that offer a foundation for European policies and legislation on food safety. The activities of this body often render support to those of the European Parliament, the European Commission, with the input of various EU member states being incorporated into the decision making process.

            EFSA also collaborates closely with various national authorities through open consultation with all stakeholders. The main areas that are always under the body’s close watch include nutrition, food and feed security, plant health, plant protection, animal health, and welfare. EFSA also acts as a focal point such that in every member state, there is a point of contact between different national food security authorities and EFSA. The other institutions that are in contact with EFSA include consumers, research institutes, and all EFSA-related stakeholders.

Every national Focal Point is assigned the role of feeding into the Advisory Forum with the aim of promoting stronger cooperation and networking. This has greatly helped raise EFSA’s profile as well as to ensure that sufficient information is exchanged between this institution and all member states (Ansell 2009: 197)[7]. Since its formation, this institution has been instrumental in providing advice on various joint projects, including databases of experts and lists of competent organizations that can assist EFSA with its work of maintaining a centralized food safety regime in the EU.

The tasks of carrying out risk assessment work is entrusted to the scientific committee and panels that EFSA has put in place. The membership of these panels and committees constitutes of experts from all over Europe, who are always appointed through an open selection process.

The EFSA’s Advisory Forum provides a platform through which member states can advise EFSA on various scientific matters, priorities, its work programs, as well as the identification of emerging issues at the earliest possible opportunity. The members of the Advisory Forum represent the national body that is responsible for dealing with risk in each EU member state.

Effectiveness of the EU food safety institutions


The FSA has a Board that reviews the agency’s effectiveness in line with the best governance practices. The review work is always carried out through in-depth interviews with various staff members, including the management board and a number of external stakeholders. In this review, the strength of the Agency’s performance is always assessed and clearly indicated. The areas where there is a need for improvement are also often highlighted.

The Board Effectiveness Review that was carried out in 2008 shows that the body continues to perform well above average. In this review, 36 interviews were conducted, including the Chief Executive, all board members, external shareholders, heads of division, and all the members of the executive management team. The review was clear about the agency’s position and function, which it deemed fit for purpose with regard to its composition, mainly because of excellent decision-making processes and friendly relationships with various EU member countries. There were only one or two exceptions, where the relationships with both internal and external stakeholders were not considered cordial.

The FSA also appears to be functioning effectively and efficiently, thanks to a rigorous board and a strong secretariat (van Egmond 2009:150)[8]. The Board has been effective in ensuring that the FSA reconciles the opposing forces of autonomy from and continued subservience to the government. The Board has been fairly successful in maintaining the principle of independence from both the food industry and the government. However, the FSA board often finds itself having to make difficult choices, which are publicly perceived as being far from perfect.

Clearly, the FSA has been making many judicious decisions on the majority of the delicate issues that it has had to deal with. On this basis, the agency may be thought to have achieved a satisfactory measure of success in maintaining a balance between being independent of the government and being an integral part of it.


For this reason, many observers have expressed the conventional feeling that the policy of transparency and openness is justified and ought to be continually pursued. However, it is widely felt that such practices can easily choke efforts towards effective board decision making, although it is also believed that the agency and its remit can be served well by such a revolutionary approach. Through the current policy framework, the decision-making process is exposed to the scrutiny of all interested parties, such that it becomes difficult for people with vested interests in FSA to undermine its efficiency without fear of being named and shamed publicly.

However, for the past four years, the FSA has been at the center of a regulatory battle pitying big food companies against numerous public health professionals and consumer groups, with both sides trading accusations over excessive lobbying and misinformation campaigns (National Governors’ Council and Food Standards Agency 2004)[9]. Nevertheless, the Agency has succeeded in calling for the introduction of a traffic-light system that requires food companies to label their products using red, amber and green symbols denoting the levels of fat, saturated fat, and sugar and salt contained in each serving. This system has been adopted in all EU member countries.

The agency, which has employed over 2,000 staff, spends 135 million pounds annually, has continually supported its decision, insisting that the prudent thing to do is to enable the obese shoppers of Europe to make informed decisions regarding the food that they buy (Benbrook 2009)[10]. The Agency’s scheme has won the support of the British Dietetic Association, British Heart Foundation, and the British Medical Association.

On a negative turn of events, the traffic light labeling system was overturned by the European Parliament in early 2010, with the Members of the European Parliament preferring a rival system that was favored by several multinationals, including Kraft, Nestle, and Danone. With this turn of events, the food industry in Europe had succeeded in advocating for ‘guideline daily amounts‘, a system whereby percentages of recommended daily allowances are listed just as they need to be included in each serving. The success came at a cost of 830 million pounds, the amount of money that the food industry spent during lobbying efforts to ensure that the use of the traffic lights scheme was discontinued. The scheme had become extremely popular because it was easy for everyone to understand it.


The EFSA has been instrumental in maintaining collaboration with national authorities in matters of scientific advice on matters that impact directly or indirectly on food and feed safety, including plant protection, animal health, and welfare. For instance, the agency’s scientific panel that deals with matters of animal health, the AHAW (Animal Health and Welfare), has been instrumental in maintaining the right biological and welfare standards for all the animals that are used for scientific and experimental purposes. For example, almost all the animals that are used in any given research project are killed at the end of such research. This is done in a humane manner, inflicting as little pain and suffering as possible to the concerned animals, the majority of which are rodents.

Elsewhere, EFSA’s scientific opinions continue to be produced by ten different Scientific Panels in conjunction with a Scientific Committee that enjoys the support of EFSA staff. The Panels and the Committee comprised of experts drawn from Europe, who are tasked with the work of addressing all risks using a multidisciplinary, integrated approach that addresses the food chain in its entirety. Where necessary, EFSA has been providing scientific information on various benefits and comparisons of risks, enabling risk managers to make decisions on the basis of comprehensive information.

The overwhelming bulk of EFSA’s work, about 90%, arises in response to requests made by the EC. The rest of the work comes from the European Parliament and the Member States. Moreover, the agency has been vocal in ensuring that it initiates its own work, as enshrined in its Founding Regulation. As of June 2008, EFSA had undertaken self-mandate initiatives on 87 occasions, something that has enabled it to nurture fundamental approaches and generate guidance documents.

As the demand for scientific opinions continues to rise, the Authority continues to face stiff challenges of meeting this demand. Within its first five years of existence, EFSA managed to issue more than 680 opinions. More than 200 opinions were issues in 2007 alone. However, output on its own cannot be considered worthy if the opinions are given do not translate into quality and usability expectations of various EU risk managers. It is against this backdrop that the EFSA launched a quality assurance program in 2007/2008.

The objective of the quality assurance program was to review and strengthen the Authority’s scientific work on a continuous basis. An internal evaluation system was a part of this mechanism, and its aim was to ensure that all the opinions given adhere consistently to the key steps of generating scientific opinions and outputs. However, an external problem still persists since an external evaluation phase is yet to be put in place, complete with an external review team.

The EFSA is currently constantly reviewing its procedures in order to refine its working methods so as to provide the best possible scientific facts on the basis of which decisions can be made. The Authority also follows closely all the activities of various EU institutions with regard to governance of agencies, in order to borrow lessons on ways of improving EFSA’s management standards.


Additionally, the Authority has managed to increase the efficiency of its recruitment procedures, such that at the end of March 2009, the company had 325 employees, 100 more than towards the end of 2006. EFSA’s staff doubled between 2006 and 2008, and by the end of 2008, 61% of the Authority’s staff members were working in one of the recently-established scientific directorates. Moreover, by the end of 2009, the Authority was allocating 70% of its budget to scientific activities.

Yet despite these remarkable flashes of success, EFSA has had its share of downturns and claims of inefficiency. In 2005, the EFSA was found to have failed in its risk assessment when it was found out that the GM Bt maize 1507, which is insect-resistant was unsafe for growing in Europe. This is a genetically modified maize variety that is also herbicide-tolerant. The problem arose from the fact that the maize strain produces Cry 1F, a Bt toxin. Since there are only a few peer-reviewed studies that dwell on the environmental risks as well as human and animal risks of Cry1F, it is obvious that considerable care ought to be taken when evaluating the benefits of the 1507 variety.

The EFSA failed to give such an accurate risk assessment.  For this reason, the Authority was appeared to be acting in utter disregard of scientific evidence by giving a positive opinion even when there are serious uncertainties on the environment, food, and feed safety.

In Technical Note 13/2005, Lorch & Cotte, researchers at Greenpeace Research Laboratories, urged the EU, on behalf of Greenpeace, to reject EFSA’s report regarding 1507 maize because of the serious lack of proper scientific scrutiny in the way it has been performed. They also urged the EU to apply its Precautionary Principle in rejecting the cultivation of this maize strain. Additionally, they urged the EU to reorganize EFSA in order to ensure that the Authority’s experts always work independently, adhering to the necessary scrutiny.

The EFSA has been facing scathing attacks from players in the European food industry, who accuse the Authority of threatening the reputation of established scientific peer-review process as well as sections of the medical fraternity, mainly through its health claim assessment methodologies. This opinion has been triggered by the comments that the EFSA freely makes on the views expressed by external scientists who work on the peer-reviewed food-science-related journals on which EFSA’s opinion is sought.

Although international scientific credibility and consistency are the main EFSA-related benefits that the food industry continues to enjoy today, EFSA continues to be criticized. The main problems cited with regard to the Authority’s operations include lack of resources, location problems, and poor communication/coordination. It is worth pointing out that most of these issues are not a criticism of EFSA personnel, or largely, of EFSA’s operations; rather, it is a criticism of the conditions within which EFSA has been requested to operate.

With regard to personnel and funding problems, the original plan was to place 340 staff before the end of 2005. This goal was not promptly achieved and it remained woefully behind schedule for far too long. This problem was largely blamed on the high professional standards expected of the applicants, insufficient financial incentives, and downgrading of 19 positions within the EFSA’s technical and management hierarchy.

In terms of location, the recent relocation of EFSA to Parma has resulted in significant problems relating to staff recruitment, not just because of the isolation and expense of the location, but as a result of the disturbances caused during the transition. The transitional disturbance aside, the EFSA management team continues to face the logistical problem for people who attend meetings with EFSA. The scientists involved in the panels have been complaining of having to arrange a three-day travel schedule for just a one-day meeting.

Communication problems take many forms at EFSA. This institution has rapidly evolved from a small, closely-knit organization, to a large institution that is heterogeneous in all its activities. This evolution has greatly reduced EFSA’s ability to maintain a balance between resource demands and resource allocation, as well as to identify overlapping areas in decision-making activities of various scientific panels.


Ansell, Christopher Knight. What’s the beef?: the contested governance of European food safety, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Massachusetts, 2009.

Bagchi, Debasis Gyan. Nutraceutical and Functional Food Regulations in the United States and Around the World, London: Routledge, 2008.

Benbrook,  Charles Peterworth. U.K. Food Standards Agency Study Does Not Reflect Latest Science and Fails to Focus on Antioxidant Content: A Key Nutritional Benefit of Organic Food, July 29, 2009. Retrieved from  on December 15, 2010.

Henson, Spencer Madison. Food safety regulation: an overview of contemporary issues, Food Policy, 24, No. 6 (1999): 589-603.

Josling, Timothy Edward. Food regulation and trade: toward a safe and open global system, New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

National Governors’ Council and Food Standards Agency. The role of Governing Bodies in developing policies to promote healthy eating: Distribution of an information pack and questionnaire to governors, January 2004, retrieved from  December 15, 2010.

Skogstad, GraceStud. “The WTO and Food Safety Regulatory Policy Innovation in the European Union” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 39, No. 3 (September 2001): 485–505.

van Egmond, Hans Panther. “Regulations relating to mycotoxins in food Perspectives in a global and European context” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 389, No 1, (2009): 147-157.

Wenzl, Thomas Thames “Analytical methods for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in food and the environment needed for new food legislation in the European Union”  TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 25, No 7 (August 2006): 716-725.

Wright, Atte Valerie. “Regulating the Safety of Probiotics – The European Approach” Current Pharmaceutical Design, 11, No. 1, (January 2005): 17-23.

[1]Henson, Spencer Madison. Food safety regulation: an overview of contemporary issues, Food Policy, 24, No. 6 (1999): 589-603.

[2]Skogstad, GraceStud. “The WTO and Food Safety Regulatory Policy Innovation in the European Union” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 39, No. 3 (September 2001): 485–505.

[3]Josling, Timothy Edward. Food regulation and trade: toward a safe and open global system, New York: Penguin Books, 1999.

[4]Wenzl, Thomas Thames “Analytical methods for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in food and the environment needed for new food legislation in the European Union”  TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 25, No 7 (August 2006): 716-725.

[5]Bagchi, Debasis Gyan. Nutraceutical and Functional Food Regulations in the United States and Around the World, London: Routledge, 2008.

[6]Wright, Atte Valerie. “Regulating the Safety of Probiotics – The European Approach” Current Pharmaceutical Design, 11, No. 1, (January 2005): 17-23.

[7]Ansell, Christopher Knight. What’s the beef?: the contested governance of European food safety, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Massachusetts, 2009.

[8]van Egmond, Hans Panther. “Regulations relating to mycotoxins in food Perspectives in a global and European context” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 389, No 1, (2009): 147-157.

[9]National Governors’ Council and Food Standards Agency. The role of Governing Bodies in developing policies to promote healthy eating: Distribution of an information pack and questionnaire to governors, January 2004, retrieved from  December 15, 2010.

[10]Benbrook,  Charles Peterworth. U.K. Food Standards Agency Study Does Not Reflect Latest Science and Fails to Focus on Antioxidant Content: A Key Nutritional Benefit of Organic Food, July 29, 2009. Retrieved from  on December 15, 2010.

Get a 15 % discount on an order above $ 15
Use the following coupon code :
Our Services:
  • Essay
  • Custom Essays
  • Homework Help
  • Research Papers
  • Argumentative Essay
  • Assignment
  • College Papers
  • Powerpoint Presentation
  • Dissertation
  • Thesis Paper
  • Dissertation
  • Editing Services
  • Review Writing
  • Lab Report
  • Book Report
  • Article Critique
  • Case Study
  • Coursework
  • Term Paper
  • Personal Statement
Order a customized paper today!