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.

This article looks at the different regulatory approaches on food irradiation, starting with international standards on food irradiation, describing the approach in the US and other third countries, and finally in the EU, where there has been a regulatory standstill since 1999. The current EU approach on food irradiation, which authorises irradiation of certain predefined product categories and sets upper dose limits, does not appear to be in line with the approach used under the relevant internationally-recognised standards, such as the Codex Alimentarius and the International Plant Protection Convention. There are potential legal conflicts between the current regulatory framework on food irradiation in the EU and the international trade framework of the World Trade Organization. Ultimately, the EU must base its measures on scientific principles, on relevant international standards, and choose the least trade-distortive measures that are available (i.e., ensure that they are applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health). In 2011, the European Food Safety Authority published new risk assessments on food irradiation, which the European Commission has requested in view of drafting new EU legislation on food irradiation, and which appear to open the way for a fundamental altering of the regulatory parameters (such that food irradiation regulations must be scientifically-justified and in line with the relevant international standards), and seem to weaken the EU stance vis-à-vis the possible instances where the current rules on food irradiation prevent (de jure or de facto) access to the EU market by third countries’ operators and products, particularly those of developing countries.

This report evaluates the current regulatory regime for health claims in the EU on the basis of a case study of the marketing of Optimel Control, a yoghurt drink which was marketed in several EU member states as a functional food aimed at suppressing appetite and maintaining weight control. Our case study of the marketing of Optimel Control in the Netherlands reveals that the use of non-textual marketing claims was much more important than the use of textual health claims. Because the current EU regulatory regime emphasizes the evaluation of the wording of health claims, but lacks an evaluation of non-textual claims we conclude that there is a regulatory void that producers can use to market their products in ways that suggest more health effects than scientifi cally warranted. As a result the protective effect of the current EU regulatory regime on health claims is less strong than what legislators may have intended. While it might seem most logical to simply expand EFSA's remit by also letting it look at non-textual claims, we argue that a better solution to close this gap is through a stricter monitoring of unfair commercial practices at national level.

Agrochemicals belong to the best tested and evaluated substances in Europe. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (“Regulation 1107”) sets forth the requirements regarding quality, safety and efficacy of agrochemicals and provides which documentation has to be submitted in order to obtain regulatory approval. The documents filed with the regulatory authorities contain proprietary information and know-how of the registrants. Accordingly, registrants have a legitimate interest in confidential treatment. Regulation 1107 thus contains specific confidentiality provisions.

On the other hand, EU legislation on transparency, in particular the legislation implementing the Aarhus Convention, provides for rights of access to information held by institutions. Recently, a number of legal actions related to the regulatory procedures for agrochemicals have been based on the transparency legislation.

This report analyses the relationship between the transparency legislation and Regulation 1107 with regard to rights of access to information provided in the regulatory process for agrochemicals.

The terms lifestyle and risk are so commonplace today that we tend to take their meaning (and social history) for granted. This is unfortunate, since neither of them is either value-free or unequivocal. Linking them – in an abstract sense as well as with regard to policy – is therefore bound to raise multiple questions regarding the definition of boundaries. If we recognise that lifestyle is not a matter of individual agency alone but also a question of structure and, similarly, if risk assessment is not just determining objects or incidences of risk but also about establishing the societal and environmental contexts within which specific negative outcomes are more likely to happen, then we are confronted with the challenge of how to approach the subject of lifestyle risk without falling prey to the temptation to impose normative expectations This paper takes issue with some of the ideas advanced in the article by Planzer and Alemanno published in EJRR 4/2010 “Lifestyle Risks: Conceptualization of an Emerging Category of Research” by considering the framing of the concept of lifestyle risk. The emergence of this concept is symptomatic of a general trend from both the right and the left of the political spectrum to re-emphasise individual responsibility for social welfare – what Planzer and Alemanno refer to as “financial solidarity”. Yet the best way to effect such financial solidarity, and more specifically to balance individual and state responsibility, is neither obvious nor uncontested. Accordingly, the notion of “lifestyle risk” is likely to become a battleground for determining the scope of state intervention, where one of the principal questions will be what gets classified as “lifestyle risk” and what does not, and how this changes over time.

Towards the end of 2011, the (then) Responsible Gambling Fund published a report which, inter alia, offers an overview of the research gaps in relation to the impact of advertising on disordered gambling. In this article, the authors of the report summarise their main findings. They conclude that evaluating the impact of gambling advertising is highly complex. Nonetheless, advertising forms an important component of the broader environment in which behaviour and attitudes are shaped. The empirical evidence base is weak and therefore conclusions about whether gambling advertising is associated with increased levels of disordered gambling cannot be drawn. However, there is some evidence that advertising alters perceptions and attitudes towards gambling. Yet, evidence demonstrating translation of this into behavioural change is weak. Particular attention should be given to vulnerable population groups such as adolescents and disordered gamblers. In view of further research, a set of recommendations is provided.

Nanomaterials and products containing such materials are already in widespread use because they exhibit technologically interesting, nano-specific features such as increased tensile strength, improved electrical conductivity, special optical characteristics or special medico-chemical properties. Nonetheless, the same features that make these substances so interesting technologically potentially harbor risks for those persons who handle them. This is because small particle size, coupled with increased reactivity due to special surface features, determines their biological activity and therefore toxicity. The increasing applications are exposing ever more employees – especially those working in research laboratories or in industrial production and processing – to nanosubstances. This makes occupational safety a major issue from a regulatory standpoint. Based on the available literature on occupational safety, the following nanomaterial-relevant topics have been identifi ed: health risks, adaptation of detection and measurement methods, actual exposure scenarios at the workplace, defi nition and compilation of existing worksites for nanomaterials, recommendations for worker safety by the authorities and by industry, as well as preventive occupational medical care.

Towards the end of 2011, the Responsible Gambling Fund published a report which, inter alia, offers an overview of the research gaps in relation to the comparative effectiveness of gambling regulation. In the present article, the authors of the report provide a summary of the main findings. They conclude that hardly any empirical evidence is available that addresses, directly or indirectly, this subject. In view of further research, a set of recommendations is provided.