The Changing Landscape of Food Governance Public and Private Encounters

by Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden, Donal

The Changing Landscape of Food Governance Public and Private Encounters

Publisher : Edward Elgar Pub

Author : Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden, Donal Casey (eds.)

ISBN : 9781784715403

Year : 2015

Language: en

File Size : 9.72 MB

Category : Politics Social Sciences


List of figures
List of tables
List of contributors
List of abbreviations



Changing regulatory arrangements in food governance
Tetty Havinga, Donal Casey and Frans van Waarden


Conceptualizing regulatory arrangements: Complex networks
and regulatory roles
Tetty Havinga






Regulation of food safety in the EU: Explaining
organizational diversity among Member States
Gabriele Abels and Alexander Kobusch


Buying biosecurity: UK compensation for animal diseases
Gareth Enticott and Robert Lee



Being well fed: Food safety regimes in China
Neil Collins and Jörn-Carsten Gottwald



The political economy of Chinese food safety regulation:
Distributing adulterated milk powder in mainland China and
John P. Burns, Jing Li and Xiaoqi Wang



Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 05:13:26PM
via University of Liverpool


The changing landscape of food governance




Authority and legitimacy in governing global food chains
Peter Oosterveer


The effectiveness of private food governance in fostering
sustainable development
Agni Kalfagianni and Doris Fuchs


Food quality through networks in the European wine industry 153
Federica Casarosa and Marco Gobbato


Markets regulating markets: Competitive private regulation by
halal certificates
Frans van Waarden and Robin van Dalen


Are we being served? The relationship between public and
private food safety regulation
Elena Fagotto


Between public and private requirements: Challenges and
opportunities for the export of tropical fruits from developing
countries to the EU
Vanessa Constant Laforce
The meta-governance of co-regulation: Safeguarding the
quality of Dutch eggs
Haiko van der Voort










Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 05:13:26PM
via University of Liverpool

1. Changing regulatory arrangements
in food governance
Tetty Havinga, Donal Casey and
Frans van Waarden


The leading position of nation states in food regulation has been displaced
by novel, fragmented and complex patterns of regulatory arrangements.
Global food governance and regulation is increasingly the activity of not
only national governmental actors, but also of a multitude and diversity
of private actors and international organizations. Governmental food
regulation has come under pressure. While on the one hand the limited
capacity of state institutions in this policy sphere has become visible, there
has on the other hand been a concomitant increase in the requirements
of and expectations towards the state to regulate food safety and quality.
Complex global food supply chains and the perception of insufficient governmental regulation point to the limitations of governmental food regulation. The growing public concern about food safety, new concerns about
lifestyle risks, animal welfare, sustainability, and advances in scientific and
technological capabilities have led to rising expectations of governmental
food regulation. Responses of both public and private organizations to
current challenges have resulted in a new landscape of food governance.
In this landscape we can observe a distinct shift from the national to
the international governmental level and from public to private governance. The European Union has attempted to strengthen its food safety
legislation with the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority.
Furthermore, private actors took a leading role in global food safety regulation and the development of retail driven food safety regulation from
the 1990s onwards. Both transitions resulted in fragmented and complex
regulatory arrangements with a multiplicity of actors at multiple levels.
The new attention to food regulation provides an opportunity to
investigate a number of broader issues that have concerned regulatory
governance scholars. These issues include: (i) the legitimacy, effectiveness
Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access


The changing landscape of food governance

and consequences of public and private regulation; (ii) the interaction of
both layers and networks of regulation; (iii) regulatory responses to crisis
and contestation; and (iv) the distribution of power in regulatory arrangements. It is against this backdrop that this collection of chapters is set.
In this introduction we outline the major trends in the food supply
chain and the expectations regarding adequate regulation and control
of food. These developments constitute the background of changing
regulatory arrangements in food governance. After that we provide a
rough sketch of the responses of both governmental agencies and private
parties to these developments. Finally the chapters in this volume are



Recent decades have seen new major developments, that have produced
radically different challenges as well as opportunities for food quality
and safety. These trends have on the one hand provided new hitherto
unheard of opportunities for food adulteration and created new types of
risks and uncertainties for food consumers, raising the expectations of
citizens towards their governments to protect them from such risks. Such
trends have also produced new opportunities for judging, monitoring, and
improving quality and safety, both ex ante in production itself as well as
ex post through new forms of regulation and oversight. These have raised
the expectations of citizens further: whatever can technically be done to
improve food safety, quality, and oversight, should be done. On the other
hand there have been trends that have reduced the capacity of national
governments to satisfy these raised expectations of their citizens. What are
some of these major trends?

New Products and New Modes of Production

Each day new food products are launched on the market. In some cases
it is merely a new package or a new name for an already existing product.
In other cases new ingredients are added, new recipes are used or entirely
new products are developed. Many food products are processed foods.
Less than half of the food people in the US, Spain and France eat is
unprocessed basic food such as vegetables, fruits and meat.1 Even fresh
vegetables, fruits, seafood and meat are increasingly bought ready-to-eat
(washed, cut, spiced, pre-cooked, preserved, and mixed).
Consumers can value the freshness of fish or the looks of apples and

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access

Changing regulatory arrangements in food governance


tomatoes; but the quality and freshness of composed food products is
more difficult to value. Consumers often do not know how their food is
being produced. Which chemicals have been added and which conservation methods are used (radiation, pasteurization, heating), and what risks
might be involved? Processed foods are also more vulnerable to fraud, in
particular in cases where the fraud is not easily noticed by the consumer,
for example when replacing an expensive ingredient with a cheap one
(horsemeat in lasagna) or omitting costly process prescriptions (misrepresenting regular meat as halal or organic).

Complex Global Food Value Chains

The food supply chain has become more internationalized and much
longer and the share of composed foods with ingredients from all over the
world has increased. We can see the scale and geographies of commerce
globalizing and expanding beyond the nation state. Like many other issue
areas and systems of production, the past twenty years have witnessed
the rapid ‘globalization of the agri-food system’ (Hatanaka et al. 2005).
Products come to us from everywhere around the globe. This concerns
not only processed food, but also fresh products. In response to consumer
demand, improved techniques for transport and storage, and growing
consumer incomes, European retailers increasingly obtain fresh products
from all over the world enabling a year-round supply. The food chain
encompasses places of production and trading around the globe. In a local
supermarket in the Netherlands or the UK, you will find mangos from
Mali, salmon from Scotland, avocados from South Africa, shrimps from
Thailand and French beans from Kenya next to domestic produced foods.
Ingredients in processed foods are not just locally obtained, but are
sourced from all over the world. The incident involving milk contaminated
with melamine from China in 2008 illustrates the consequence of global
sourcing of food ingredients. Melamine was found worldwide in various
food products: in sweets, cookies, chocolate, baby food, pretzels, icecream, coffee and soya in countries such as Singapore, Indonesia, Canada,
the United States, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Poland.
These products were probably produced with an ingredient that contained
contaminated Chinese milk.2
The global sourcing of food creates new types of risks within the supply
chain ‘as food is subject to greater transformation and transportation, and
fragmented supply chains across multiple enterprises and food production
systems with diverse producer characteristics, regulatory frameworks,
environmental conditions and technical expertise are brought together’
(Henson and Humphrey 2010). Such complex global food supply chains

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access


The changing landscape of food governance

make things difficult for governmental agencies aiming at the production
and marketing of safe food. This applies particularly to national governments without jurisdiction outside their national borders. They can only
rely on inspections by foreign agencies (governmental or private) and
import controls (see Constant Laforce in this volume).

Advances in Science and Technology

Scientific advances are important in food governance in several respects
and give us more scientific knowledge about risks, food safety, and (un)
healthiness of food ingredients and food habits. New technological knowledge results in new ways to produce, store, conserve, pack, transport and
prepare food. New knowledge also results in more techniques to identify
risks, substances and the authenticity of food, and new opportunities to
manage and control identified risks. In food governance science plays
an increasingly important role in risk assessment and risk management.
International treaties from the WHO and the EU prescribe countries a
science based food policy in order to avoid unfair competition, protectionism and trade barriers. Governments depend highly on external experts for
scientific knowledge and risk assessment. Here, science has come to dictate
in large part: (i) how food safety and quality standards are developed;
(ii) who should develop them; (iii) what the contents of such rules should
be; and (iv) how the standards should be enforced. Thus, there are
important implications for not only the setting of standards, but also for
the means of verification and implementation.
Monitoring and controlling food production processes and food
products is highly dependent on technological devices and knowledge.
Advances in scientific and technological capabilities to detect even small
amounts of substances in food and the growing knowledge about diseases
related to food add to the public perception of food safety risks. For
example, the possibilities to connect information from different sources
results in a higher level of detected food-borne diseases.
Modern information and communication technology provides many
opportunities for worldwide easy and fast information exchange. This
fosters the development of hypes: information or misinformation on
the web can result in media coverage, consumer boycott or pressure on
governments to take action.
Moreover, science is not only of instrumental value, but also of great
normative value by providing constitutive and legitimating support to
actors engaged in governance (Drori et al. 2002). Many commentators
have observed the scientization of contemporary society through the
expanded role played by science in many aspects of social, economic

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access

Changing regulatory arrangements in food governance


and political life. In particular, it has been noted that one of the most
‘striking features of contemporary society is that science speaks with
highly legitimate authority on the widest range of questions’ (Drori and
Meyer 2006a, 40). Importantly, the expanded authority of science is now
also a central feature of contemporary governance. Indeed, the reliance
upon science and scientific discourse as a base of legitimacy has taken
a dominant role in the legitimating actions of actors engaged in governance to the extent that it has primacy over moral, political or pragmatic
bases of legitimacy (Djelic and Sahlin-Anderson 2006, Drori and Meyer
2006). The expansion of scientific authority provides legitimating tools
for actors as the knowledge assumed to be embedded in science provides
justifications for political, economic, and social choices of actors. The
reason for this lies in the perceived value neutrality of decisions and rules
based upon science, and the fact that they emanate from experts. Political
debates following the BSE crisis and the discussion around genetically
modified foods have questioned the neutrality of scientific knowledge.
However, while in many cases the perceived reliance on science and expert
knowledge may only hold symbolic power, it still constitutes a significant
institutional force (Jacobsson 2000, 40). Greater knowledge also brings
new and extended responsibility of authorities. They cannot continue as if
nothing has changed.

New Perceptions of Food Safety

What is regarded as safe food depends on available knowledge and hence
changes over time. Due to the advances in science and technology we
know more and more about food, risks, food-borne illness, allergens,
and so on. Several risks may be connected to food: contamination with
bacteria, prions or toxic material (animal pharmaceutical, herbicides, and
dioxin), allergens and particular nutrients (sugar, fatty acids, unhealthy
eating) (Van Kreyl and Knaap 2004, McCabe-Sellers and Beattie 2004).
It is not always obvious which foods are safe for consumption. The same
food may carry no risk at all for one consumer, and be quite dangerous for
another consumer (due to allergic response, disease or eating habits). The
ways food is stored and prepared can cause food disease or kill harmful
microbes. Risks of using a particular production method or additives are
not always known. There also might be a difference between subjective
and objective risks.
Over time we see changes in what is considered to be the major food
safety issue. Between 1970 and 1990 much attention was paid to harmful
chemical substances in food. After 1990 healthy food became the most
prominent issue. Recently the chemical safety of food is receiving attention

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access


The changing landscape of food governance

once again, along with the health consequences of animal diseases and
microbial contamination.

Public Concern about Food

Food scandals have regularly hit the media headlines. The 2013 horsemeat scandal concerned horsemeat being sold as beef or ‘hidden’ in meat
products like hamburgers, sausages and lasagna. Around that time it was
also discovered that some eggs were inaccurately claimed to be organically
produced and in Germany frozen fish and seafood were made intentionally heavier by adding water. Some revelations were unfounded, such as
the claim that Spanish firms had used the meat of abandoned cats and
dogs in the production of animal feed and meatballs. Nevertheless they are
reported in the media and result in consumer concern about adulteration
and thus, the credibility of both the regulatory regime and food business
More serious, however, are food incidents where human health is at
risk. In 2011, a number of consumers became fatally ill as a result of the
EHEC bacteria. It took some time before the source of the contamination was identified. Several raw vegetables notably cucumbers, tomatoes,
lettuce, bean sprouts, and fenugreek from the Netherlands, Spain and
Egypt were said to be the source of EHEC. This led several countries,
including Russia, to close their borders to such products. In 2008, Chinese
dairies added melamine to their milk in order to fraudulently increase the
protein level of the milk (see Burns et al. in this volume). Six children died
and 54 000 children were hospitalized as a result of consuming the adulterated milk. The scandal also had some unforeseen consequences, as the
demand in China for foreign baby milk formula created a shortage of it in
the Netherlands in 2013.
The best known of such incidents in recent decades has been the BSE
crisis. In order to introduce a cheap means of protein into the animal feed
system, animal protein such as bone meal was added to the feed chain.
This introduction resulted in a new disease in animals that was subsequently passed through the food chain to consumers. Between 1986 and
2009, 168 people, mostly in the UK, died from the variant CreutzfeldtJakob disease, a deadly brain disorder.
The 20 March 1996 statement by the then Conservative British government that there was a probable link between Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob (vCJD) disease
created unprecedented widespread concern among consumers about the
safety of their food and a new heightened awareness of food safety issues.3
This consumer concern permeated through Europe and has continued

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access

Changing regulatory arrangements in food governance


to do so in light of new manufactured risks such as genetically modified
foodstuffs and pesticide residues. This transformation in the mind-set of
European consumers has been linked by agricultural sociologist Hugh
Campbell (2006: 126) to a broader shift in Western societies ‘from politics
of class (which has dominated modernity since the Industrial Revolution)
to politics of risk’ – a manifestation of Beck’s ‘risk society’ (Beck 1992).
As Moran (2002, 407) notes, ‘“risk society” in turn produces a regulatory
Traditional public concerns regarding food were focused on the availability of enough food (food security) and the absence of dangerous or
unhealthy food (food safety). However, public concern about food is
not confined to issues of safety and health risks. Consumer expectations,
preferences and attitudes have changed in relation to food quality and
increased recognition of the external effects of their consumption. There
has been increased emphasis and importance attached to non-traditional
quality attributes of food associated with the environmental, social and
animal welfare dimensions of food production processes and the corollary
effects consumption can have on these issues (Kysar 2004). Increasingly,
claims are being made that food has been responsibly produced (sustainable food production, fair trade, animal welfare and labour rights) and is
healthy (with less sugar, salt, fat, additives, and fewer calories). These new
concerns about sustainability, health, animal welfare and the social effects
of the globalization of food production, add new requirements to the food
production and distribution system.



The last decades have seen a growing public concern about food. Better
informed, critical and assertive consumers expect their government to
secure safe and healthy food and protection against all risks. We could
speak of a revolution of rising expectations: as food becomes safer and as
knowledge about food risks increases, we expect an increased level of food
safety, or even better, 100 per cent safety.

Higher Expectations towards Public Authorities by their Public

The growing public concern about food contributed to the call for more
transparency and accountability. This normative pressure takes the form
of promoting a model of food safety and quality regulation that provides structures and procedures within the standard setting, monitoring

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access


The changing landscape of food governance

and enforcement activities that seek to advance transparency, openness,
representation, participation, deliberation and consensus. For example,
the new UK food safety structure offers opportunities for participation
and a high level of transparency. Many food safety authorities make
documents, inspection reports and so on available to the interested public.
Private parties are also faced with comparative demands to provide more
transparency, openness, participation, deliberation and consensus.
Food safety developed from a mainly technical and apolitical issue into
a politically debated and contested issue. Food safety got heightened issue
saliency after several food related scares and disputes, such as mad cow
disease, hormone-treated meat, dioxin contamination, genetically modified foods, EHEC and the horsemeat scandal. Food risks became more
visible and recognized and are the subject of growing public concern.
Food safety issues attract media attention and are debated by political
groups. This puts pressure on public authorities and the food industry to
take adequate measures to prevent future scandals and to secure the safety
of food. Loeber et al (2011) show that framing incidents as ‘food scares’
(in contrast to framing them as environmental scandals or disasters in the
past) goes hand in hand with institutional changes in the regulatory system
in the European Union and in several EU member states.

With (Perceived) Limits to Government Regulation

Moreover, the BSE crisis and subsequent food scares have led to a decline
in the perceived ability of state governance systems to effectively regulate and guarantee the safety of food (Caduff and Bernauer 2006). The
identification of new risks has also changed consumers’ attitudes towards
food safety, and more importantly has damaged the trust consumers
have in state regulation. The response of the British government to the
BSE crisis has often been cited as a manifest illustration of the inability
of the national government to deal with food risks. The BSE crisis also
showed that the European Union failed to act adequately (Vos 2000). The
Commission had followed a policy of disinformation that had prevented
legislative activity and member states from restricting the import of British
beef. The relevant committees had been influenced by British members
and were under political pressure. The BSE crisis counts as a turning point
in the European Union’s food policy. This criticism on the effectiveness
of governmental food regulation corresponds with the general perception
that traditional command-and-control regulation is ineffective, inflexible
and neglects the responsibilities of corporations and citizens. Enticott and
Lee (in this volume) present an example of governmental regulation that
is counterproductive. They show that the UK compensation policies for

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access

Changing regulatory arrangements in food governance


animal diseases such as bovine tuberculosis and foot and mouth disease
provide no incentive to develop best practices and precautionary measures.
Paradoxically, governments are confronted with higher expectations
and demands regarding the safety, quality, and reliability of food products
on markets, while the past decades have seen an increasing dominance
of the neo-liberal ideology favouring a limited role for the government
in society in general and markets in particular. Neo-liberalism advocates
economic liberalism, free trade, open markets, the reduction of government regulation, cutting of public expenditures and a small public sector.
Moreover, national states are also constrained by international law from
the WTO and the EU. In international relations the fear for protectionism and unfair competition is an important impediment for national food



Trends in the food industry pose new challenges to government regulation
of food quality and safety. The globalization of food chains implies that
production and distribution are increasingly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of national governments. The increased popularity of composed
foods implies that it is more difficult to identify their composition, origin
and the conditions of production. Advances in science and technology
have increased our understanding about risks, but the counter side is that
with more knowledge comes more responsibilities for the prevention, aversion or correction of risks. Knowledge cannot be undone. That has fueled
public expectations towards governmental protection: through public
regulation and of course instantaneous, effective, and efficient implementation and enforcement. Yet these same citizens are also wary of ‘too big
In the context of these developments new forms of food governance
have emerged, notably new European Union food law, private food
standards, corporate social responsibility initiatives, and transnational
regulation. The current landscape of food governance contains a growing
diversity of regulatory arrangements: public, private and hybrid, on
national, transnational and global levels.
In response to food crises, the decline in consumer confidence and the
threat of losing export markets, the European Union strengthened its food
safety legislation and established the European Food Safety Authority.
The European Commission responded to the accusation of lack of
transparency and of manipulation during the BSE crisis with proposals

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access


The changing landscape of food governance

for radical reform. It adopted an approach emphasizing food safety and
consumer protection based on three general principles:

separation of the responsibility for legislation and for scientific advice;
separation of the responsibility for legislation and for inspection; and
greater transparency and information during decision-making and

The 2002 General Food Law lays down the general principles and
covers the entire food supply chain, including not only food safety requirements but also issues of animal health, product quality, cattle feed and
sustainability. European directives are replaced by regulations; regulations are a more immediate and hence stronger legal form because they are
directly applicable, i.e. they do not need transposition by member states in
national legislation to become effective.4
Several European member states have established new regulatory agencies or reformed existing agencies to oversee the food control activities
(see  Abels and Kobusch in this volume). Likewise, the Chinese governmental agencies responded to several food crises, and their negative effects
on the reputation of Chinese export products with legal reforms and other
measures (Collins and Gottwald; Burns et al. in this volume).
Producers and suppliers have become primarily responsible for food
safety, while national governments have become responsible for controlling the adequacy of risk controlling mechanisms of companies in the food
chain. Because of their legal responsibility and out of fear for potential
reputation damage due to food scandals caused by claims of unsafe or
unfair food products, the food industry and retailers have developed
initiatives for decreasing food safety risks and increasing consumer confidence in food products. In the 1990s several large food manufacturers
and supermarket chains developed their own quality control systems.
In order to control the input, the companies want to make sure that the
goods they purchase will meet particular standards and qualifications. A
company quality control system often includes requirements for suppliers.
For example, in the 1990s several British and Dutch supermarket chains
contractually obliged suppliers to meet a comprehensive quality assurance
standard, including unexpected inspections at farms, gardens and plants
(e.g. Albert Heijn (AH) in the Netherlands, Tesco and Sainsbury’s in the
United Kingdom) (Havinga and Jettinghoff 1999, Havinga 2006). Since
the 1990s private retail standards have expanded dramatically. Food
retailers joined forces to harmonize supplier standards. Regulation of
food safety by retailers using quasi-legislation as an instrument to force
trade partners to take food safety measures evolved from regulation that

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access

Changing regulatory arrangements in food governance


originated from one supermarket chain to regulation of the united supermarkets. These standards are often monitored by independent certification and inspection organizations. National private certification schemes
have crossed borders and became global or transnational (Fuchs et al.
2011; Fagotto in this volume).
Retailers use their purchasing power to impose food safety and quality
requirements, as well as other specific product and process preferences, on
farmers and food industry suppliers. Given the ever growing size of these
food retail chains, suppliers are dependent on them and have to comply
with their requirements if they want to sell (Boselie et al. 2003; Grabosky
1994, 429–432; Havinga 2006; Marsden et al. 2000, 2010).
Next to retail driven standards many other private food standards have
emerged, initiated and promoted by the food industry, trading corporations, trade associations and non-profit civil society organizations or
NGOs. Their objectives range from securing safe food to improving animal
welfare, protecting the environment, labour rights, or ensuring fair trade.
Examples include fair trade labels, sustainability, religious food standards
(see Van Waarden and Van Dalen in this volume), organic food labels,
food safety, vegetarian or biodynamic labels (Van der Meulen 2011).
In these new forms of regulation, private actors are assuming pivotal
roles in rule-making, monitoring compliance, and enforcement. The food
industry, and retail corporations in particular, have become key players in
the governance of the global food system through the creation of governance institutions such as private standards, corporate social responsibility initiatives (CSR) and public-private or private-private partnerships.
Kalfagianni and Fuchs (in this volume) and Oosterveer (in this volume)
investigate the source of legitimacy and accountability of these private
forms of governance.
Recently hybrid governance forms have also been developed involving
both governmental and private actors. This hybridisation has consequences for the conceptualisation of regulatory roles and forms of governance (Havinga in this volume). Cooperation between government and
industry in food governance challenges the existing distribution of power
and responsibilities (Van der Voort in this volume).



This volume examines the changing new governance of food. The introductory part sketches the developments and institutional challenges in
food governance and the new forms of food regulation that have been
developed. Tetty Havinga argues that new private and mixed forms of

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access


The changing landscape of food governance

food regulation ask for a rethinking of the relevant distinctions between
the actors involved and the roles they play in the regulatory process. A
regulatory regime performs five functions: (1) rule making; (2) adoption
of the rules; (3) implementation of the rules; (4) monitoring compliance;
and (5)  enforcement. Havinga contends that the traditional distinctions
between public and private actors, and between state, market and civil
society actors, masks interdependence, conflicts of interest and power, and
advocates a more detailed analysis.
Part II investigates public policy responses to the challenges posed
by food crises, in particular in the European Union and its Member
States, and in China. Gabriele Abels and Alexander Kobusch analyze the
national institutional choices concerning independent food safety agencies
in 23 out of the 27 EU Member States. In so doing, they question whether
these choices can be explained by path dependency or rather as a phenomenon of Europeanization. Abels and Kobush classify food risk governance
regimes in three organizational models:

the bi-institutional model (risk assessment separated from risk
the integrated model (one food authority is responsible for both risk
assessment and risk management); and
a fragmented model (during period of transition).

Both Europeanization and national historical tradition are shown to have
been important in Austria, Sweden and Hungary – these three countries
each represent a specific organizational model of food risk governance.
Drawing on case law and reforms of animal health legislation, Gareth
Enticott and Robert Lee analyse the way the United Kingdom deals
with animal diseases. For Enticott and Lee, compensation provided by
the state when diseased animals are slaughtered should incentivise good
practice, deter illegal or inappropriate practices and provide a fair system.
They conclude that the current UK compensation system provides limited
incentive for bio-security and has led to some perverse effects.
The next two chapters shift the focus from the European Union to China.
The Chinese food safety system is important from a European perspective
because of China’s significance as a trading partner with the European
Union, and recent food scares such as milk tainted with melamine. Neil
Collins and Jörn-Carsten Gottwald analyze the impact of the new Chinese
Food Safety Law 2009 on Chinese regulatory practice. They examine four
dimensions: (1) organization; (2) guiding principles; (3) configuration of
actors; and (4) specific reform capacity. The authors examine how the
pressures of local interests have been accommodated to the demands of

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access

Changing regulatory arrangements in food governance


globalized capitalism. Furthermore, Collins and Gottwald illustrate the
changing nature of the relationship of the state and its regulations to the
citizens of China, again sometimes by conceding, sometimes by coercing.
John Burns, Jing Li and Xiaoqi Wang’s comparative study of the
Chinese mainland and Taiwan’s reaction to adulterated milk powder highlights that politicians make institutional choices for the delivery of public
services, including the regulation of food safety, based on the incentive
systems through which they operate. On the mainland an incentive system
that rewards officials for fulfilling a narrow range of targets has had the
unintended consequence that they relatively ignore non-targeted policy
goals. Pressure for food safety reform has probably come mostly from
China’s external trade partners. In Taiwan local officials are also looking
up to their bureaucratic principals but the incentive system of competitive
elections in a system with media freedom and a well developed civil society
means that the public as principal is also important. Public disgust with
the handling of a food safety crisis opened a window for administrative
reform that could improve policy coordination through centralization.
Part III deals with new forms of private food governance. Peter
Oosterveer investigates whether the theoretical frameworks of Sassen and
Rosenau might enable us to better understand (environmental) authority in the global governance of food, and in particular, the balance that
should be established between the public and the private sphere. Using
the cases of two private food standards (GlobalG.A.P. and Marine
Stewardship Council [MSC]), Oosterveer concludes that these standards
do not derive their authority and legitimacy from formal procedures but
from intended output. The case of MSC shows that a private standard is
capable of including countervailing power within the regulatory arrangement. Developing upon Sassen and Rosenau, Oosterveer points to the role
of science in food governance.
Effectiveness is a crucial criterion for the legitimacy of private forms of
governance as it is frequently identified as private actors’ claim to legitimacy. In their analysis of the effectiveness of GlobalG.A.P. in fostering
sustainable development, Agni Kalfagianni and Doris Fuchs focus on the
stringency of the GlobalG.A.P. standard. They argue that effectiveness
is a function of external pressure, internal collaborative structures, and
characteristics of available solutions, as well as the size and heterogeneity
of the group of actors designing and implementing the governance institution. They expect that a ‘larger degree of decision-making power of environmental and social NGOs in the GlobalG.A.P. governance mechanisms
would likely have led to a different outcome (more stringency)’.
Federica Casarosa and Marco Gobbato analyze private quality standards operating in interfirm networks in the wine sector. Based on

Tetty Havinga, Frans van Waarden and Donal Casey - 9781784715403
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 10/24/2016 02:54:30PM
via free access

© 2018-2019 All rights reserved