IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/352.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Precautionary bans or sacrificial lambs? Participative regulation and the reform of the UK food safety regime

Author

Listed:
  • Rothstein, Henry

Abstract

This paper explores contemporary trends towards participative risk regulation and considers the impacts of participative reform on policy processes and outcomes. Using the example of reform of the UK food safety regime, the paper examines whether participative reforms, in the form of stakeholder decision-making, are able to deliver their promised benefits and if not, why not. Empirically, the paper examines how UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) used a stakeholder decision-making process to manage the potential risks from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in sheep in 2002, and the initial rejection of those proposals by the European Commission. The paper finds that the potential benefits of the stakeholder process were mitigated by a number of institutional factors, including: considerable interpretative flexibility in how to represent consumer interests and the concept of precaution; restricted openness and exclusion of key stakeholders; and the impact of the supra-national regulatory context. The paper concludes that broadening participation per se does not necessarily produce more democratic or robust policy outcomes than closed processes, although it may have some limited value in improving public confidence in the regulatory regime.

Suggested Citation

  • Rothstein, Henry, 2003. "Precautionary bans or sacrificial lambs? Participative regulation and the reform of the UK food safety regime," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 352, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/352/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynn Frewer & Brian Salter, 2002. "Public attitudes, scientific advice and the politics of regulatory policy: The case of BSE," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 137-145, April.
    2. N. M. Ferguson & A. C. Ghani & C. A. Donnelly & T. J. Hagenaars & R. M. Anderson, 2002. "Estimating the human health risk from possible BSE infection of the British sheep flock," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6870), pages 420-424, January.
    3. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019, Decembrie.
    4. Susan Owens, 2000. "‘Engaging the Public’: Information and Deliberation in Environmental Policy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(7), pages 1141-1148, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rothstein, Henry, 2003. "Precautionary bans or sacrificial lambs? Participative risk regulation and the reform of the UK food safety regime," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 36002, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Julien Etienne, 2015. "Different ways of blowing the whistle: Explaining variations in decentralized enforcement in the UK and France," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 309-324, December.
    3. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    4. Jeroen van der Heijden & Jitske de Jong, 2009. "Towards a Better Understanding of Building Regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    5. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, 2022. "The Case Study of Los Angeles City & County Fraud, Embezzlement and Corruption Safeguards during times of pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 593-610, September.
    6. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    7. Mathias Ericson, 2018. "“Sweden Has Been Naïve”: Nationalism, Protectionism and Securitisation in Response to the Refugee Crisis of 2015," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 95-102.
    8. Fox, John A. & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru, 2004. "Risks and implications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy for the United States: insights from other countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 45-60, February.
    9. Rudolf URBAN, & Roman URBAN, & Lukáš ŠTĚPà NEK, 2016. "A New Approach To Risk Assessment Based On The Semantic Value Of Expressions," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, January.
    10. Karen Bickerstaff & Emma Hinton & Harriet Bulkeley, 2016. "Decarbonisation at home: The contingent politics of experimental domestic energy technologies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(10), pages 2006-2025, October.
    11. Yunxin Peng & Adel A. Zadeh & Sheila M. Puffer, 2023. "Unearthing the Construction Industry’s Awareness of and Reactions to the Global Sand Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Harriet Bulkeley & Tim Rayner, 2003. "New Realism and Local Realities: Local Transport Planning in Leicester and Cambridgeshire," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(1), pages 35-55, January.
    13. Peter Taylor-Gooby, 2008. "Sociological approaches to risk: strong in analysis but weak in policy influence in recent UK developments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 863-876, October.
    14. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    15. Ioannidis, John P.A. & Cripps, Sally & Tanner, Martin A., 2022. "Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 423-438.
    16. David Demeritt & Henry Rothstein & Anne-Laure Beaussier & Michael Howard, 2015. "Mobilizing Risk: Explaining Policy Transfer in Food and Occupational Safety Regulation in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(2), pages 373-391, February.
    17. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    18. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    19. Jerry Busby & Melissa Sedmak, 2011. "Practices and problems in the management of risk redistributions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 259-279, February.
    20. Eyert, Florian & Irgmaier, Florian & Ulbricht, Lena, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:352. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.