This opinion piece puts forward a critique of the policy and regulatory frameworks governing vaccines, understood as tools to confront pandemic and epidemic diseases (PEDs). Vaccines being the universally recognised prime method of prevention, immunisation campaigns and vaccine research and development (R&D) could reasonably be expected to feature prominently in any policy and/or strategic document addressing emerging health threats. Yet, vaccination occupies a relatively subsidiary role, with a prevalent focus on risk management mechanisms. This piece outlines the main characteristics of preparedness frameworks and looks at vaccine development in the course of PED outbreaks in the recent past, concluding that the COVID-19 pandemic calls for a paradigm shift in vaccine R&D, which should become integral to public health preparedness.

The COVID-19 pandemic is changing the face of Europe. Member States’ divergent responses to this crisis reveal a lack of unity in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. At best, this undermines the effectiveness of health protection within the European Union (EU). At worst, it risks breaking up the Union altogether. Divergent national responses to COVID-19 reflect different national preferences and political legitimacy, and thus cannot be completely avoided. In this article, we argue that these responses should be better coordinated. Without coordination, the price for diversity is high. Firstly, there are damaging spill-overs between Member States, which undermine key pillars of European integration such as the free movement of persons and of goods. Secondly, national policy-making is easily captured by local interest groups. Our proposal is that the EU indicates – not mandates – a European exit strategy from asymmetric containment policies of COVID-19. In particular, the EU should help Member States procure and validate tests for infection and immunity. The EU should also indicate ways in which testing could be used to create safe spaces to work, thereby restoring the free movement of persons and of goods. We see a great advantage in such EU guidance: it could improve mutual learning between Member States, which have faced different timings of the epidemic and learned different lessons. Although the local political economy has so far delayed learning and undermined cooperation, the EU can mitigate both effects and indicate the way for Europe to resurrect united from the ashes of COVID-19.

Modern technologies enable traders to design more personal and comprehensive product labelling, as well as to improve product traceability through the supply chain. Personalised and comprehensive product information could raise consumers’ product awareness, shaping new consumers’ product and safety expectations. The improved product traceability through the supply chain could extend the producers’ control over the product, beyond the moment the product left the manufacturing process. This paper examines the impact of modern technologies on European rules of product liability. Specifically, it considers whether the recognition of a defective product in the currently reviewed Product Liability Directive should continue to follow the test of the public’s safety expectations, as well as whether producers could continue to rely on the defence of a product not being defective when they put it into circulation.

In response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, European Union (EU) Member States adopted technological solutions aimed at mitigating the effects of the virus, as well as enforcing newly adopted public health measures. Examples include apps for disseminating information, performing self-diagnosis, enforcing home quarantine orders and aiding contact tracing. This extensive use of technology for tracking and promoting public health raises important questions regarding EU citizens’ privacy. Thus far, the discourse in this regard has predominantly revolved around data protection, the risk of surveillance and the right to control access over one’s personal information (informational privacy). In light of the push towards a more unified approach to mitigating the current pandemic and future health crises through a European Health Union (EHU), we consider a different dimension of privacy that may be at risk when employing technology for public health, namely the right to non-interference with one’s decisions (decisional privacy). In particular, this article focuses on whether the advances in health-related persuasive technology, together with a more general movement towards “nudging” as an individual and public health tool, will require EU legislation to further protect decisional privacy by regulating “hypernudging” technologies and to guide the EHU in coordinating public health measures that utilise these technologies in a privacy-preserving way.

Banks are informational intermediaries whose efficient operation is strongly tied to the maintenance and continuance of the trust and confidence produced by them and by external sources. The literature on trust and confidence with relevance to banking has shown particular interest in their links with panics and bank runs, together with their wider resulting implications on the macro-stability of the financial system. However, on the micro level, an initial outcome emanating from a lack of trust and confidence would be the disruption of the information production that ultimately paves the way for further deterioration, leading to a vicious circle. To investigate this further, this article will shed light on this micro aspect of bank information production and its relationship with public trust and confidence.

The European Commission recently published the policy recommendations of its “High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence”: a heavily anticipated document, particularly in the context of the stated ambition of the new Commission President to regulate in that area. This article argues that these recommendations have significant deficits in a range of areas. It analyses a selection of the Group’s proposals in context of the governance of artificial intelligence more broadly, focusing on issues of framing, representation and expertise, and on the lack of acknowledgement of key issues of power and infrastructure underpinning modern information economies and practices of optimisation.

Frequently, decisions related to health protection are taken directly on the basis of scientific assessment and they are not clearly understood, as is highlighted in the Xylella example. Therefore, this article suggests that coherent processing of information in risk assessment may allow also a “third party” (who has not already expressed a specific interest in the procedure) to participate. In order to truly grasp the EU administration, an accountable way of communicating is helpful. Therefore, communication around the democratic process might be based on EU administrative principles and rules supporting a composite administrative system: it must not neglect the implications of compliance with the multilingual principle and its consequences for EU law, which would also lead to greater trust in risk assessment.

The marketing of tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy food and gambling services is harmful to public health, the European economy and sustainability. If the European Union (EU) has embraced the regulation of cross-border marketing for tobacco products for over two decades, it has consistently resisted evidence-driven calls to regulate the marketing of other harmful commodities, preferring instead to rely on ineffective industry pledges. This contribution reflects on why the EU has failed to use its competence to regulate cross-border marketing more systematically to protect health and highlights why the time is ripe to reconsider the issue, before concluding with a possible way forward.

Due to its borderless nature, COVID-19 has been a matter of common European interest since its very first detection on the continent. Yet this pandemic outbreak has largely been handled as an essentially national matter. Member States adopted their own different, uncoordinated and at times competing national responses according to their distinctive risk analysis frameworks, with little regard1 for the scientific and management advice provided by the European Union (EU), notably its dedicated legal framework for action on cross-border health threats.2 To justify such an outcome as the inevitable consequence of the EU’s limited competence in public health is a well-rehearsed yet largely inaccurate argument3 that calls for closer scrutiny.

This short paper aims to unpack some of the assumptions underlying the “Policy and Investment Recommendation for Trustworthy AI” provided by the High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (AI) appointed by the European Commission. It elaborates in particular on three aspects: on the technical-legal dimensions of trustworthy AI; on what we mean by AI; and on the impact of AI. The consequent analysis results in the identification, amongst others, of three recurrent simplifications, respectively concerning the definition of AI (sub-symbolic systems instead of “intelligent” informational processing systems), the interface between AI and institutions (neatly separated instead of continuity) and a plausible technological evolution (expecting a plateau instead of a potentially near-disruptive innovation).

In 2014, the European Joint Procurement Agreement (JPA) was introduced as an innovative instrument to organise the procurement of vaccines and medications in preparation for pandemics. An overriding purpose of the JPA is to secure equitable and cost-effective access to medical supplies for participating EU Member States during serious health crises. This article aims to understand the current use of the JPA in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Post-analysis of the recent use of the JPA, the article will discuss how the regional procurement mechanism can be strengthened to support the development of a European Health Union. In particular, the article will firstly question whether the four recent JPA procurement actions facilitated equitable access to medical supplies and services. Secondly, it will ask whether the centralised procurement actions preserved the integrity of the Internal Market. The importance and originality of this study are that it addresses an instrument, the JPA, which has been largely overlooked by legal scholars, and it explores how the provisions for the joint procurement of medical countermeasures as included in Article 5 of Decision 1082/2013/EU on serious cross-border threats to health could be extended to support the functioning of a European Health Union.

Pharmaceutical science has provided humans with better and cheaper treatments. However, with improved access to medicines, the amount of pharmaceutical waste also grows. Pharmaceutical waste is regularly mismanaged by households, which is considerably and unnecessarily adding to the “pharmaceuticals in the environment” problem. Redesigning existing pharmaceutical takeback schemes and their regulation is a potential step towards a reduction of the problem. Interdisciplinary research between the fields of psychology, law, public health and medical science is necessary to tackle the issue and to design effective regulation steering responsible patient behaviours.

The world economy is sliding yet into another recession (having arguably barely recovered from the previous economic downturn) due to the worldwide pressures and tensions created by the COVID-19 pandemic.1 With most countries in the world under lockdown (or in similar situations), almost all food is now consumed in the household. Arguably, agricultural producers and the retail industry appear to be the best placed to weather the storm in order to respond to such a change in demand. However, this is overly simplistic. Recent news of empty shelves in supermarkets whilst dairy farmers have been forced to pour milk down the drain have gone viral.

The shortcomings in the handling of COVID-19 highlighted the salience of health and safety at work and fuelled discussions surrounding the desirability of a European Health Union. This article conceptualises occupational health and safety at the European Union (EU) level as a key driver for the creation of a European Health Union. Through recourse to the area’s roots and its relevance to the tackling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the benefits of putting occupational health and safety in the driving seat are set out. The implications of maintaining a healthy workforce are acute, from both a social and a public health perspective, especially in the time of a pandemic. Relying on a reflective approach that goes beyond the status quo, this article offers pragmatic yet imaginative proposals for strengthening the occupational health and safety acquis. The proposals act as the blueprint for health and safety in the workplace to lay the foundation for a European Health Union and advance the social dimension of the EU.