During the last two decades, precaution has been dealt with by law scholars as it was a sort of myth. Its historical formal expressions, first in the EC Treaty (about the European environmental policy) and then in the European general food law (in Article 7 of EC Regulation No 178 of 2002) often has been described as the recognition of a new legal principle, a somewhat revolutionary novelty in EU food legislation. Consequently, it became the subject of a huge and impressive “production” of theoretical studies by law doctrine all over the EU. For years, it seemed that no new issue of a law journal, especially if concerning matters such as food law, risk regulation, market law, and public policies on food, risk and market, could have been published unless an article or a comment had been dedicated to this new, groundbreaking and thundering principle. This essay is not aimed at challenging, nor at questioning, the importance of the values which such principle tends to protect, but rather is aimed at affirming the likely overestimation of the importance of its expressed codification. The analysis is carried out by trying to demonstrate how the same results can be achieved on the basis of another more consolidated EU law principle – namely, proportionality – dating back to a pre-precautionary era. It tries to show how EC Court of justice usually recognized the lawfulness of EC Institutions’ acts and decisions, made in typical precautionary situations, basing on proportionality criteria when an expressed precautionary principle still didn’t exist. And how EC Commission succeeded in proving that a precautionary approach is clearly implied in the legal concept of proportion. In this perspective, the main role played by the codification of the precautionary principle has been facilitating the dispute resolution when dealing with the application of proportionality to scientific uncertainty and, this way, perhaps reducing the litigation on trade restricting measures adopted without a solid science-based risk assessment. A sort of confirmation of the thesis above could be found in the “casual” references to precaution, sometimes made by the EUCJ in last years: they seem to be the signals of a frenzy to use precaution even when recalling it is inappropriate, or – in other cases – of an immature elaboration of it by judges, rather than an indication of a real vitality of this principle.

The "Myth" of Precaution

Paolo Borghi
2019

Abstract

During the last two decades, precaution has been dealt with by law scholars as it was a sort of myth. Its historical formal expressions, first in the EC Treaty (about the European environmental policy) and then in the European general food law (in Article 7 of EC Regulation No 178 of 2002) often has been described as the recognition of a new legal principle, a somewhat revolutionary novelty in EU food legislation. Consequently, it became the subject of a huge and impressive “production” of theoretical studies by law doctrine all over the EU. For years, it seemed that no new issue of a law journal, especially if concerning matters such as food law, risk regulation, market law, and public policies on food, risk and market, could have been published unless an article or a comment had been dedicated to this new, groundbreaking and thundering principle. This essay is not aimed at challenging, nor at questioning, the importance of the values which such principle tends to protect, but rather is aimed at affirming the likely overestimation of the importance of its expressed codification. The analysis is carried out by trying to demonstrate how the same results can be achieved on the basis of another more consolidated EU law principle – namely, proportionality – dating back to a pre-precautionary era. It tries to show how EC Court of justice usually recognized the lawfulness of EC Institutions’ acts and decisions, made in typical precautionary situations, basing on proportionality criteria when an expressed precautionary principle still didn’t exist. And how EC Commission succeeded in proving that a precautionary approach is clearly implied in the legal concept of proportion. In this perspective, the main role played by the codification of the precautionary principle has been facilitating the dispute resolution when dealing with the application of proportionality to scientific uncertainty and, this way, perhaps reducing the litigation on trade restricting measures adopted without a solid science-based risk assessment. A sort of confirmation of the thesis above could be found in the “casual” references to precaution, sometimes made by the EUCJ in last years: they seem to be the signals of a frenzy to use precaution even when recalling it is inappropriate, or – in other cases – of an immature elaboration of it by judges, rather than an indication of a real vitality of this principle.
2019
9788813370473
food, food law,EU law,international law,precaution,precautionary principle,proportion,law and science, law and technology, law and innovation
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Borghi - The myth of precaution.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: Pre print
Tipologia: Pre-print
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 233.44 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
233.44 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
2404496The Myth of precaution_Borghi.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: versione editoriale
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 4.46 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
4.46 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2404496
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact