FORVALTNINGSDATABASEN

Elvbakken, Kari Tove ; Lægreid, Per ; Rykkja, Lise Hellebø (2008):

Regulation for Safe Food: A Comparison of Five European Countries

Scandinavian Political Studies, 2008, Vol.31(2), pp.125-148

Publikasjonstype:

Tidsskriftsartikkel

Fulltekst:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00199.x/full

Omtale:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00199.x/abstract

Antall sider:

23

ISSN-nummer:

1467-9477

Publiseringsspråk:

Engelsk

Land publikasjonen kommer fra:

Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Germany

NSD-referanse:

3068

Disse opplysningene er sist endret:

21/5 2014

Spesifikke virksomheter publikasjonen omhandler:

Sammendrag:

This article explores food safety regulation in five European countries by comparing their main legislation and organizational characteristics. The aim is to gain insight into the particular characteristics of food safety regulation, understand major differences and similarities, and reach a firmer understanding of how regulation evolves. Food safety regulation concerns vital questions, and is a field with a long history. Food scandals – in particular the 1996 BSE crisis – and European integration have prompted major changes. The BSE scandal revealed important underlying conflicts of interest and dilemmas concerning the twin objectives of ensuring safe food while also ensuring honest trade in food. This led to a questioning of existing structures and paved the way for new regulation. The authors’ main finding is that food safety regulation has similar origins, addresses similar tasks, and raises similar problems and conflicts in all five countries. A tension between protecting public health and paying heed to business interests, and a struggle for control over this policy field between the administrations of health and agriculture, are common features. However, the configuration of food safety regulation in legislative and organizational terms varies. The comparative focus reveals that national context and history are important for understanding change. This leads to the conclusion that the framing and reframing of the field depend largely on how it is structured and regulated initially, as well as on the constellations of interests and values that are operative and legitimate in each context.