Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:13:46.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Brief Comment on Science-based Risk Regulation Within the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Barbara Stibernitz
Barbara Stibernitz*
Affiliation:
Barbara Stibernitz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nowadays as political decision making involves such a huge range of complex matters, scientific experts have become more and more involved in European risk regulation. The support by so-called independent experts may, on the one hand, be seen as a guarantee of rational decision making, increasing the quality of decisions as well as the general acceptance of all people affected. On the other hand, the number of expert groups, scientific committees and agencies helping the Commission in fulfilling its duties is vast and confusing.

In addition, scientific advisory bodies often face the burden of unrealizable independence, as well as a lack of transparency and democratic control. This article sums up the central position of science-based risk regulation within the European Union (EU), referring to the necessity for expert opinion as well as to consequent problems concerning the involvement of these experts in risk regulatory actions.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 86 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Majone, Giandomenico, “The Rise of the Regulatory State in Europe”, 17 West European Politics (1994), pp. 77 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For further details see Fox, Tessa, Versluis, Esther and van Asselt, Marjolein, “Regulating the Use of Bisphenol A in Baby and Children’s Products in the European Union”, 1 EJRR (2011), pp. 21 et sqq Google Scholar.

3 Commission Regulation 2011/10/EU of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, OJ 2011 L 12/1.

4 Commission Directive 2002/72/EC of 6 August 2002 relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs, OJ 2002 L 220/18.

5 For an overview see <http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/bisphenol.htm?wtrl=01> (last accessed on 16 January 2012).

6 Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food on a request from the Commission related to BPA, EFSA Journal (2006) 428, 1–75; Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Food additives, Flavourings, Processing aids and Materials in Contact with Food (AFC) on a request from the Commission on the toxicokinetics of BPA, EFSA Journal (2008) 759, 1–10; Statement of EFSA on a study associating BPA with medical disorders prepared by the Unit on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids (CEF) and the Unit on Assessment Methodology (AMU), EFSA Journal (2008) 838, pp. 1–3.

7 Scientific Opinion on BPA: evaluation of a study investigating its neurodevelopmental toxicity, review of recent scientific literature on its toxicity and advice on the Danish risk assessment of BPA, 8 EFSA Journal (2010), at p. 1829.

8 COM (2000) 1, Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle, 3.

9 COM (2000) 200 final, Reforming the Commission – A White Paper – Part II – Action plan, action 17.

10 SCCS, Opinion on HC Yellow n° 13, SCCS/1322/10, 2.

11 SCCS, Opinion on HC Yellow n° 13, SCCS/1322/10, 6.

12 See http://europa.eu/agencies/index_en.htm (last accessed on 16 January 2012).

13 See for example Griller, Stefan and Orator, Andreas, “Everything under control? The way “forward” for European agencies in the footsteps of the Meroni doctrine”, 1 ELRev (2010), pp. 1 et sqq Google Scholar.; Fischer-Appelt, Dorothee, Agenturen der europäischen Gemeinschaft, (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1999), at p. 38 Google Scholar.

14 Enjoying a certain degree of organizational and financial independence, Stefan Griller and Andreas Orator, 1 ELRev (2010), at pp. 8 et sqq.

15 See Majone, Giandomenico, “The new European agencies, regulation by information”, 4 Journal of European Public Policy (2001), pp. 262 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 See Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances, OJ 2005 L 127/32.

17 See Council Decision 2010/759/EU of 2 December 2010 on submitting 4-methylmethcathinone (mephedrone) to control measures, OJ 2010 L 322/44; for further details see Kofler, Barbara, “Tod den (oder durch?) Legal Highs – Hilfe durch europäische Netzwerke am Beispiel Mephedron”, 3 Journal für Strafrecht (2011), pp. 91 et sqq Google Scholar.

18 Géradin, Damien and Petit, Nicolas, “The Development of Agencies at EU and National Levels: Conceptual Analysis and Proposals for Reform”, 1 Jean Monnet Working Paper (2004), pp. 1 et sqq, at p. 50Google Scholar.

19 See Michaela Wittinger, “Europäische Satelliten: Anmerkungen zum Europäischen Agentur(un)wesen und zur Vereinbarkeit Europäischer Agenturen mit dem Gemeinschaftsrecht”, 5 Europarecht (2008), pp. 609 et sqq., at pp. 620 et sqq.

20 Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union [2002] ECR II-03305, at para. 201.

21 Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA v. Council of the European Union [2002] ECR II-03305, at para. 199.

22 For details see Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145/43.