Suchergebnisse

International audience ; In the European Union, food safety policies combine public regulations with private standards, in accordance with co-regulation principles. GLOBALGAP was initiated in 1997 by European retailers who developed a shared certification scheme inducing producers to comply with requirements on food safety, sustainable production methods, occupational health and animal welfare. The rise of standards in the governance of agri-food chains has been the subject of extensive debate among social scientists, based mainly on the issue of legal pluralism. Public regulations and voluntary standards are commonly presented as simultaneously competing with and reinforcing legal systems. The aim of this article is to discuss this assumption. First, we analyse GLOBALGAP as a repository, demonstrating that it is composed of heterogeneous types of prescription, such as good practice, proof recording and the rule of law, and that it covers many different issues (quality, environment, producer health, animal welfare, etc.). Second, we examine the issue of the rule of law within a voluntary standard and show that GLOBALGAP operates as a centre of calculation, bringing together separate existing elements of the law. As a consequence, the standard provides a material, organizational and cognitive support for a managerial rationalization of farms by actors such as consultants or producers organizations.

Résumé L'article analyse un déplacement des frontières sectorielles dans l'État environnemental en suivant la création du ministère de l'Écologie et du Développement durable et de ses directions régionales (DREAL) entre 2007 et 2015. Portée par des acteurs politiques lors de la campagne présidentielle de 2007, la réforme doit faire naître une bureaucratie faisant travailler ensemble les administrations chargées des activités productives à fort impact sur les ressources (Équipement, Industrie) et celles centrées sur les écosystèmes (Environnement) afin d'accroître la transversalité ministérielle au nom du développement durable. À partir de données d'archives et d'entretiens auprès de hauts fonctionnaires nationaux et régionaux, nous montrons, à rebours d'une approche essentialiste, l'existence de conceptions concurrentes de cette transversalité et le poids des enjeux bureaucratiques et professionnels dans la mise en place des DREAL. Dans un contexte de restrictions budgétaires, l'effort pour introduire plus de transversalité est réorienté par des jeux de compétition et d'alliance entre cadres intermédiaires et entre fiefs bureaucratiques des corps techniques de l'État. La réforme conduit à redessiner les organigrammes, regrouper les équipes de direction et unifier leurs discours mais elle laisse persister des identités professionnelles, des cloisonnements et la nécessité de coordinations internes. Les changements observés sont limités et ne répondent pas aux objectifs initiaux d'une transversalité ambitieuse et d'une administration intégrée du développement durable.

Au tournant des années 1970, l'État français soutient le développement d'un laboratoire de recherches et d'études qui l'accompagne dans la mise en œuvre des politiques de modernisation des industries agroalimentaires. L'article décrit le style de raisonnement économique que ce laboratoire développe en réponse à ses commanditaires. Il insiste sur les fondements intellectuels, institutionnels et politiques de ce style, qui participe d'un mouvement général de reconfiguration des recherches en économie appliquée à l'entreprise.

Au fil d'un dialogue renoué vingt ans après, les fondateur·rice·s de terrains & travaux , Gilles Bastin, Laure Bonnaud, Olivier Le Noé et Pierre-Paul Zalio, rejoint·e·s rapidement par Ashveen Peerbaye, racontent la naissance de ce qui n'est d'abord que le cahier d'un département de sciences sociales d'une école normale supérieure. Du petit collectif, de ses préoccupations, des contextes pédagogique et institutionnel, de la conjoncture intellectuelle vécue par de tout jeunes sociologues, émerge progressivement, d'un numéro à l'autre, une revue accueillante aux recherches empiriques en sciences sociales.

Cephalopods have been utilised in neuroscience research for more than 100 years particularly because of their phenotypic plasticity, complex and centralised nervous system, tractability for studies of learning and cellular mechanisms of memory (e.g. long-term potentiation) and anatomical features facilitating physiological studies (e.g. squid giant axon and synapse). On 1 January 2013, research using any of the about 700 extant species of "live cephalopods" became regulated within the European Union by Directive 2010/63/EU on the "Protection of Animals used for Scientific Purposes", giving cephalopods the same EU legal protection as previously afforded only to vertebrates. The Directive has a number of implications, particularly for neuroscience research. These include: (1) projects will need justification, authorisation from local competent authorities, and be subject to review including a harm-benefit assessment and adherence to the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction). (2) To support project evaluation and compliance with the new EU law, guidelines specific to cephalopods will need to be developed, covering capture, transport, handling, housing, care, maintenance, health monitoring, humane anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia. (3) Objective criteria need to be developed to identify signs of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm particularly in the context of their induction by an experimental procedure. Despite diversity of views existing on some of these topics, this paper reviews the above topics and describes the approaches being taken by the cephalopod research community (represented by the authorship) to produce "guidelines" and the potential contribution of neuroscience research to cephalopod welfare.

Cephalopods have been utilised in neuroscience research for more than 100 years particularly because of their phenotypic plasticity, complex and centralised nervous system, tractability for studies of learning and cellular mechanisms of memory (e.g. long-term potentiation) and anatomical features facilitating physiological studies (e.g. squid giant axon and synapse). On 1 January 2013, research using any of the about 700 extant species of "live cephalopods" became regulated within the European Union by Directive 2010/63/EU on the "Protection of Animals used for Scientific Purposes", giving cephalopods the same EU legal protection as previously afforded only to vertebrates. The Directive has a number of implications, particularly for neuroscience research. These include: (1) projects will need justification, authorisation from local competent authorities, and be subject to review including a harm-benefit assessment and adherence to the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction). (2) To support project evaluation and compliance with the new EU law, guidelines specific to cephalopods will need to be developed, covering capture, transport, handling, housing, care, maintenance, health monitoring, humane anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia. (3) Objective criteria need to be developed to identify signs of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm particularly in the context of their induction by an experimental procedure. Despite diversity of views existing on some of these topics, this paper reviews the above topics and describes the approaches being taken by the cephalopod research community (represented by the authorship) to produce "guidelines" and the potential contribution of neuroscience research to cephalopod welfare. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion