Search results

1.1 Global Agreements and Standards China joined the WTO in 20011. If we look at foodstuffs and medicines from a consumer viewpoint, the most important WTO agreements are the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT Agreement) and the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). The TBT Agreement covers all mandatory and voluntary technical regulations and standards, including testing and certification procedures. The aim of the agreement is that these technical measures do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.2 The SPS Agreement defines the rights and obligations of members with respect to application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. This means laws and standards on food safety, animal health and plant health. Basically, the SPS agreement defines how food is to be regulated in order to maintain TBT agreement goals3. The TBT agreement also applies to medicines4. Disputes arise when trade restrictions are justified by somewhat ambiguous goals such as human health. The most famous food disputes resolved by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body are the 'hormones in beef case'5 of 1998 and the 'sardine case'6 of 2002. EC banning beef hormones was not justified according to the SPS agreement, because it was not based on Codex Alimentarius Standards. EC restricting the use of the term 'sardine' was not justified according to the TBT agreement, because the restrictions were not based on the Codex.7. Here we see the connection between Codex standards and WTO disputes: Codex rules are specifically referred to in the TBT Agreement8 and the SPS Agreement9, and are therefore used as a reference in trade disputes at the WTO.10 Codex Alimentarius is an international organization governing foodstuffs and operating under United Nations organizations FAO11 and WHO12. China is a member. Codex documents are global food law13: Codex Alimentarius pursues to protect the health of consumers and to promote fair international food trade.14 The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the highest decision-making body, where the representatives of the approximately 18015 member states meet every year. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the most important global actor drafting food standards. Codex documents are in the forms of standards, codes of practice, guidelines, principles, recommendations, etc. Standards often relate to product features and can be very precise, setting for example MRLs (maximum residue levels) for pesticides or medicinal substances in foods. There is for example a standard for canned baby food and a standard for frozen spinach. Codes of practice guide procedure as regards production, preparation, transport and storage, including HACCP16 systems. Guidelines exist for example on nutrition and health claims17. Principles are more general and relate for example to import and export certificates. The division between different document types is not important as none of the Codex documents are directly binding on food industry operators. All of the above-mentioned document types are listed under 'standards' on the Codex web page18. It is important for China to defend their interests in Codex, particularly as a member of the WTO. The role of the Codex Commission is to provide a political forum to debate issues. The role of WTO Dispute Settlement Body is to ultimately resolve issues that cannot be agreed upon. As regards to China, the absence of WTO disputes against China is seen as a sign of China's reasonably effective implementation of the WTO rules19. The worst possible scenario is that China would disrupt the whole WTO process that is based on consensus20. Trade partners expect China to comply with the spirit of the WTO agreements and to develop into a "more responsible member of the international community"21. Foreign businesses expected to benefit from a more transparent and predictable business environment in China22. According to the US-China Business Council in 2008, China has gone a long way in fulfilling its WTO obligations, but there are still problems related to the principle of national treatment in particular. This means that foreign companies experience adverse treatment compared to Chinese companies. Discrimination comes in the form of stricter regulations and their enforcement. In addition, application procedures and license approval procedures are more stringent, time consuming or costly for foreign companies, foreigners are excluded from standards setting processes, and there is bias towards domestic goods in government procurement.23 According to Peerenboom, some of the areas listed by foreign investors are actually required of China by the WTO, while others are just wishful thinking seeking to further foreign interests24. Besides factors related to the Chinese legal culture, employment and income levels of the Chinese people will determine whether China will fulfil its WTO obligations25. The TBT Agreement recommends the recourse to international standards wherever possible while drafting technical regulations. Besides Codex standards, ISO/IEC26 standards are particularly referred to in the TBT Agreement27. ISO is the International Organisation for Standardisation, and has published several standards related to the food industry. ISO is a nongovernmental organization "forming a bridge between the public and private sectors". ISO is a network of the national standards institutes of its 157 member countries. Many of the member institutes are part of the governmental structure of their countries, while others have been set up by national partnerships of industry associations.28 Legal description of the ISO standards is difficult. They are not agreements between states as with Codex standards, and they are not selfregulation as governments are involved. They are followed voluntarily, although abiding by a standard might be required in practice. In any case, ISO standards can be defined as soft law. On medicines, the WHO is involved in developing international medicinal products law. They develop international norms, standards and guidelines, and provide guidance, technical assistance and training to support countries in adopting these standards on medicinal products.29 The WHO also organizes international conferences of drug regulatory authorities, where medicinal products law is discussed. The outcome of these meetings are "Recommendations", in which various areas of medicinal products law are discussed. They are in the form "member states should…"i.e. adoption is not mandatory. In 2006, it was agreed for example that member states should support clinical studies of herbal medicines30, and seek efficient sanctions for false drug advertising, particularly internet advertising31. China is involved in the WHO discussions and drafting the recommendations on medicinal products law. China also works bilaterally on issues of medicine law. For example between China and the EU, the agreement on a "Consultation and Cooperation Mechanism" was signed in 2008. In 2009, the Chinese SFDA32 met with the Director General Enterprise of the EC in the first annual high-level working conference under the "mechanism".33

COVID-19-pandemia oli pitkäkestoinen mediatapahtuma, jossa asiantuntijoiden rooli tiedon lähteinä ja tulkitsijoina oli keskeinen. Perinteisesti asiantuntijoiden ja uutismedioiden välillä vallitsee hyvä yhteistyösuhde, sillä asiantuntijat tarjoavat uutismedialle sen kaipaamaa faktapohjaisuutta ja asiantuntijat näkevät julkisen kommentoinnin osana työnkuvaansa. Artikkelissa tutkimme haastatteluaineiston avulla asiantuntijoiden ja toimittajien käsityksiä keskinäisestä yhteistyöstään pandemian aikaan Suomessa.
Havaitsimme yhteistyössä kaksi eri vaihetta. Ensimmäisessä maalis–huhtikuuhun 2020 ajoittuneessa vaiheessa, jota kutsumme kriisimoodiksi, asiantuntijat ja viranomaiset asettuivat viestinnällisesti samalle puolelle. Erimielisyydet jätettiin taka-alalle ja asiantuntijat ja uutismedia tekivät yhteistyössä viranomaistoimintaa tukevaa tiedonvälitystä. Toukokuusta 2020 alkoi toinen vaihe, jota kutsumme nimellä julkiset kiistat. Kriisimoodiin verrattuna yhteistyö alkoi rakoilla ja jännitteet nousivat pintaan. Tämä johtui toimittajien itsereflektiosta sekä osin asiantuntijoiden keskinäisestä erimielisyydestä ja uutismedian taipumuksesta kärjistää uutisaiheita. Akuutissa kriisitilanteessa yhteistyö voi olla saumatonta, mutta asiantuntijoiden ja toimittajien väliset jännitteet ovat myös kansalaisen tiedontarvetta palveleva voima.

Insects, as a food and or feed source, represent an emerging protein source relevant to farmers, feed companies, food companies and food marketers globally. The growth of this industry is somewhat restricted due to outdated food and feed regulations covering insect use. The regulations also do not allow the use of all potential insects as food and feed. Governments aim to ensure food and feed safety, and each country has its own substantive and procedural rules for this purpose. However, the regulatory demands and differences between countries complicate the international marketing strategies for insect products. Food and feed regulation are separate; feed regulation may allow insect usage even when they are not allowed as food. Some countries have specific rules for novel foods, while others do not. This paper compares insect food and feed regulation of the primary production and marketing areas: the European Union, the United States, Canada, and Australia. In addition, the situation in selected countries in Central and South America, Asia and Africa is also discussed.

Highlights • EU food law impacts the transformative potential of alternative proteins. • Insects and cultured meat are novel foods; several microalgae and macroalgae are not. • The GM Food Regulation applies to all genetically modified or edited foods. • The names of vegan products have caused controversy. • The principles of non-discrimination and proportionality are important for fairness. ; We ask how European food law impacts the transformative potential of alternative proteins, including single-cell proteins, plant-based novel proteins, cultured meat,macroalgae, and insects. The Novel Food Regulation may prove insurmountable for small companies, and it is demanding and time-consuming even for larger companies,dampening the transformative potential of all novel foods and traditional foods from third countries. Several microalgae and macroalgae are non-novel in the EU, which eases their way into the markets. The unclear novel food status of some potential green macroalgae species is a hindrance. All insects are novel, and none has EU-level authorization yet, although some Member States allow insect food. The GM Food Regulation is procedurally and scientifically demanding, and it forces GM labelling. The Regulation dampens the transformative potential of food GM technology. In addition to crops and fruit, GM Food Regulation applies to genetically modified or edited microbes,microalgae, cultured meat, and insects. The naming and labelling rules of plant-based products have caused controversy. From the business perspective, the health claims process is similarly challenging as the novel food process. EU food law must guarantee food safety and consumer rights while applying the principles of nondiscrimination and proportionality.

BACKGROUND: According to the psychosocial vulnerability model, the health of hostile individuals is at greater risk than that of non-hostile individuals, due partly to lesser ability of the former to cope with psychosocial stress situations. We examined whether hostile individuals were more vulnerable than others to health problems when faced with stressful changes in their working lives. METHODS: Hostility, sickness absence and psychosocial stressors in 866 local government employees over a 5-year period, which included severe economic decline, were investigated. Hostility was measured by a questionnaire. Data on medically certified sickness absence were obtained from the records of the local authority. Information about exposure to psychosocial stressors after assessment of hostility was also derived from these records, and from the subjects. RESULTS: Exposure to stressors during the period of economic decline was related to increased rates of sickness absence. In men, hostility increased risk of sickness absence after exposure to stressors only in cases of absence because of trauma. In women, hostility increased risk of absence through sickness overall and absence because of musculoskeletal disorders in individuals facing stressors such as severe organizational downsizing, high or increased levels of job demands or negative change in work. Findings were adjusted for sickness absence at the beginning of the decline, socio-economic background and behavioural risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The psychosocial vulnerability model was partly supported. However, heightened vulnerability through hostility may differ between the sexes, since it was more evident in the women studied than in the men.

The profound changes in Earth systems dynamics are affecting the health of the entire planet and the realization of a broad range of human rights. In this paper, we propose that the grand narrative of human rights including the legal right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment recognized by the United Nations in 2022 requires the acknowledgment of the interconnected challenges posed by planetary crises. We discuss how planetary boundaries (PB) research can provide evidence-based arguments and clarify State duties concerning their international human rights law commitments. The economic, social and cultural rights are deeply connected with the right to a healthy environment. Human rights to water, food, or health, for example, can all be understood in the context of Earth systems change. Civil and political rights go beyond individuals to include also collective action and participation to tackle planetary social-ecological challenges. Gaps remain in human rights law concerning some of the PBs, which risks overlooking the interconnected drivers of ecosystem degradation. Clearer legal standing and justification for legal demands, for example concerning the impacts of water use, land use and deforestation, are needed to tackle PB overshoot. States must act at various spaces including the global economic systems and the global supply chains of goods and services for humanity to reach planetary safe and just spaces. Weaving international human rights law and advances at various geographical scales on the right to a healthy environment with PB provides a powerful tool for defending the prerequisites of good life for everyone, everywhere.

Insects, as a food and or feed source, represent an emerging protein source relevant to farmers, feed companies, food companies and food marketers globally. The growth of this industry is somewhat restricted due to outdated food and feed regulations covering insect use. The regulations also do not allow the use of all potential insects as food and feed. Governments aim to ensure food and feed safety, and each country has its own substantive and procedural rules for this purpose. However, the regulatory demands and differences between countries complicate the international marketing strategies for insect products. Food and feed regulation are separate; feed regulation may allow insect usage even when they are not allowed as food. Some countries have specific rules for novel foods, while others do not. This paper compares insect food and feed regulation of the primary production and marketing areas: the European Union, the United States, Canada, and Australia. In addition, the situation in selected countries in Central and South America, Asia and Africa is also discussed.