Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Behavioural Law and Economics of the Precautionary Principle in the EU and Its Impact on Internal Market Regulation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Consumer Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The precautionary principle contributes to “the social” of internal market regulation as it counterbalances the loss aversion and availability bias of regulators who may too hastily endorse measures based to further the fundamental freedoms instead of fundamental rights and environmental protection. The precautionary principle also enhances the regulatory power of the European Union. By way of regulating via the precautionary principle, EU institutions pretend to have answers to citizen’s fears. These fears result from a crisis of causality, as society is trying to find a meaning to what sometimes appears as a series of patternless events. The EU legal order takes advantage of these effects. It creates an image of being able to cope with these fears, although it is rather questionable whether they really can live up to these expectations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

  2. Regulation 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31, 1.02.2002, p. 1, hereinafter General Food Law.

  3. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1 final.

  4. Case C-157/96 of 5 the Court of May 1998, National Farmers’ Union and Others [1998] ECR I-2211, para 63, Case C-180/96, Judgment of the Court of 12 July 1996, United Kingdom v. Commission [1998] ECR I-2265, para 99; Case C-236/01, Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003, Monsanto Agricoltura Italia v. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, [2003] ECR I-8105, para 111; Case T-13/99, Judgment of the Court of 11 September 2002, Pfizer Animal Health v. Council [2002] ECR II-3305, para 139.

  5. See. Art. 3 (1) TFEU.

  6. This has become particularly evident by Artedogan’s claim that “the application of the precautionary principle, which requires a balancing of interests linked to the protection of the health and the economic interests of the undertakings concerned, can often lead to a preference being granted to the former interests.”, see Case C-221/10 P, Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, [2012] ECR I-0000 (nyr), at para. 54.

  7. Case C-77/09, Gowan Comércio Internacionale Serviços Lda v. Ministero della Salute [2010] ECR I-13533.

  8. Art. 191 (3) first hyph. TFEU.

  9. Case C-221/10 P, Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, [2012] ECR I-0000 (nyr), at para. 106.

  10. Directive 2001/18/EC.

  11. Regulation (EC) 1829/2003.

  12. Art. 1 Directive 2001/18/EC and, via reference to the General Food Law, Art. 1 of Regulation (EC) 1829/2003.

  13. Article 3(1) EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

  14. Case C-183/95, Affish BV v Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van Vee an Vlees [1997] ECR I-4362, para 43; approved by Case C-221/10 P, Artegodan GmbH v European Commission, judgment of 19 April 2012, nyr, para 99.

  15. Decision 96/239/EC [1996] OJ L 78/47.

  16. See Case C-241/01, Judgment of 22 October 2002, NFU v. Secrétariat générale du gouvernement [2002] ECR I-9070.

  17. See from nowadays perspective Art. 4 (2) (k) TFEU.

  18. See from nowadays perspective Art. 6 (a) TFEU.

  19. Art. 3 (3) subpara 4 TEU.

References

  • Alemanno, A. (2011). Annotation of European Court of Justice case C-79/09 (sic!), Gowan Comércio Internacional e Serviços Lda v. Ministero Della Salute (Precautionary Principle). Common Market Law Review, 48, 1329–1348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anker, H., & Grossman, M. (2009). Authorization of genetically modified organisms: precaution in US and EC Law. European Food and Feed Law Review, 1, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2011). EU ‘social’ policy: From employment law to labour market reform. In P. Craig & G. de Burca (Eds.), The evolution of EU Law (pp. 641–686). Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (2013). The substantive law of the EU (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994). The precautionary principle in Germany enabling government. In T. O’Riordan & J. Cameron (Eds.), Interpreting the precautionary principle (pp. 31–60). London: Cameron May.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, G. (2008). Economic impacts of low level presence of not yet approved GMOs on the EU food sector. Briefing document. available at http://www.agrodigital.com/images/estudio.pdf.

  • Collman, J. P. (2001). Naturally dangerous. Sausalito: University Science Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dana, D. (2003). A behavioral economic defense of the precautionary principle. Northwestern University Law Review, 97, 1315–1347.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Burca, G. (2011). The evolution of EU human rights law. In P. Craig & G. de Burca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Sadeleer, N. (2002). Environmental principles: From political slogans to legal rules. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dörner, D. (1996). The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations. New York: Metropolitan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, C. (2014). The Impact of WTO SPS Law on EU Food Regulations. New York, London, Dordrecht, Berlin, Cham: Springer.

  • Eckley, N., & Selin, H. (2004). All talk little action: precaution and the European chemicals regulation. Journal of European Public Policy, 11, 78–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. (2002). Precaution, precaution everywhere: developing a “common understanding” of the precautionary principle in the European community. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 7–28.

  • Fisher, E. (2007). Risk regulation and administrative constitutionalism. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furedi, F. (2009). Precautionary culture and the rise of possibilistic risk assessment. Erasmus Law Review, 2, 197–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, S., Carlsen, L., & Tickner, J. (2007). Chemicals regulation and precaution: does REACH really incorporate the precautionary principle. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyvaert, V. (2006a). Facing the consequences of the precautionary principle in European Community law. European Law Review, 31, 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heyvaert, V. (2006b). Guidance without constraint. Assessing the impact of the precautionary principle on the European Community’s chemical policy. In T. Etty (Ed.), Yearbook of European Environmental Law, 6 (pp. 27–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladeur, K.-H. (2003). The introduction of the precautionary principle into EU Law: a pyrrhic victory for environmental and public health law? Decision-making under conditions of complexity in multi-level political systems. Common Market Law Review, 40, 1455–1479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinen, J. (2012). Risk governance and the precautionary principle: recent cases in the environment, public health and food safety (ENVI) committee. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3, 169–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K. (2004). In the Union we trust. Trust-enhancing principles of Community law. Common Market Law Review, 41, 317–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G. (2002). What price safety? The precautionary principle and its policy implications. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40, 89–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGee, A., & Weatherill, S. (1990). The evolution of the single market: harmonisation or liberalisation. The Modern Law Review, 53, 578–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neergaard, U., Nielsen, R., & Roseberry, L. (Eds.). (2010). The role of courts in developing a European social model. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nourse, V., & Shaffer, G. (2009). Varieties of new legal realism: can a new world order prompt a new legal theory? Cornell Law Review, 95, 61–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purnhagen, K. (2013), Systematization in EU Product Safety Regulation. Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

  • Rehbinder, E. (1994). The precautionary principle in an international perspective. In E. M. Basse (Ed.), Miljørettens Grundspørgsmål: bidrag til en nordisk forskeruddannelse. Copenhagen: Gad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12, 185–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, N. (2011). Rescuing the strong precautionary principle from its critics. University of Illinois Law Review, 4, 1285–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (2000). The perception of risk. London: Routlege.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2003). Beyond the precautionary principle. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 1003–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (2006). Laws of fear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. (Winter 2002–2003). The paralyzing principle. Regulation, 32–37.

  • Szajkowska, A. (2012). Regulating food law (doctoral dissertation, Wageningen University, 2012). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Szajkowska, A.; van der Meulen, B. (2014), Science-based governance? EU food regulation submitted to risk analysis. In M. Fenwick, S. van Uytsel, & S. Wrbka (Eds.), Networked Governance, Transnational Business and the Law (pp. 57–81) Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.

  • Szawlowska, K. (2004). Risk assessment in the European food safety regulation: who is to decide whose science is better? Commission v. France and beyond…. German Law Journal, 5, 1259–1274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R. (1995). Quasi-rational economics. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trappenburg, M., & Schiffelers, M.-J. (2012). How to escape the vicious circle: the challenges of risk regulation reflex. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3, 283–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 3–22). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen, B., Bremmers, J., Wijnands, J., & Poppe, K. (2012). Structural precaution: the application of premarket approval schemes in EU food legislation. Food and Drug Law Journal, 67, 453–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meulen, B.; Bremmers, H.; Purnhagen, K.; Gupta, N.; Bouwmeester, H., Geyer, L. L. (2014), Governing Nano Foods. Principles-Based Responsive Regulation. Amsterdam, Boston, Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, San Diego, San Francisco, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo: Academic Press.

  • Wibisana, M. R. A. G. (2008). Law and Economic Analysis of the Precautionary Principle (Doctoral dissertation University of Maastricht, 2008).

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper has been benefitted from the comments of the two anonymous reviewers as well as from the comments received in the framework of the EDLE seminar at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam Law School and the presentation at Wageningen University. Particularly, Alexandre Biard, Michael Faure, Arnout Fischer, Louis Visscher, Bernd van der Meulen, and Maria Pia Sacco and the two anonymous reviewers deserve gratitude.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law and Governance Group, Social Sciences Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, Netherlands

    Kai Purnhagen

  2. Rotterdam Institute of Law and Economic, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands

    Kai Purnhagen

Authors
  1. Kai Purnhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Purnhagen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Purnhagen, K. The Behavioural Law and Economics of the Precautionary Principle in the EU and Its Impact on Internal Market Regulation. J Consum Policy 37, 453–464 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-014-9261-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-014-9261-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation