Public-Private Regime Interactions in Global Food Safety Governance

In response to an apparent decline in global food safety, numerous public and private regulatory initiatives have emerged to restore public confidence. This trend has been particularly marked by the growing influence of private regulators such as multinational food companies, supermarket chains and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who employ private standards, certification protocols, third-party auditing, and transnational contracting practices. This paper explores how the structure and processes of private food safety governance interact with traditional public governance regimes, focusing on Global Good Agricultural Practices (GlobalGAP) as a primary example of the former. Due to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of public regulation in the face of global problems, private governance in food safety has gradually replaced states\u27 command-and-control regulation with more flexible, market-oriented mechanisms. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of constructive regime interaction instead of institutional boundary building to global food safety governance. Public and private ordering must each play a role as integral parts of a larger, dynamic and evolving governance complex

Public-Private Regime Interactions in Global Food Safety Governance

In response to an apparent decline in global food safety, numerous public and private regulatory initiatives have emerged to restore public confidence. This trend has been particularly marked by the growing influence of private regulators such as multinational food companies, supermarket chains and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who employ private standards, certification protocols, third-party auditing, and transnational contracting practices. This paper explores how the structure and processes of private food safety governance interact with traditional public governance regimes, focusing on Global Good Agricultural Practices (GlobalGAP) as a primary example of the former. Due to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of public regulation in the face of global problems, private governance in food safety has gradually replaced states’ command-and-control regulation with more flexible, market-oriented mechanisms. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of constructive regime interaction instead of institutional boundary building to global food safety governance. Public and private ordering must each play a role as integral parts of a larger, dynamic and evolving governance complex

Public-Private Regime Interactions in Global Food Safety Governance

In response to an apparent decline in global food safety, numerous public and private regulatory initiatives have emerged to restore public confidence. This trend has been particularly marked by the growing influence of private regulators such as multinational food companies, supermarket chains and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who employ private standards, certification protocols, third-party auditing, and transnational contracting practices. This paper explores how the structure and processes of private food safety governance interact with traditional public governance regimes, focusing on Global Good Agricultural Practices (GlobalGAP) as a primary example of the former. Due to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of public regulation in the face of global problems, private governance in food safety has gradually replaced states\u27 command-and-control regulation with more flexible, market-oriented mechanisms. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of constructive regime interaction instead of institutional boundary building to global food safety governance. Public and private ordering must each play a role as integral parts of a larger, dynamic and evolving governance complex

2016 China Food Law Update

This update of China food law builds on a unique feature for the Journal of Food Law .& Policy that has been provided since the Journal\u27s inception - separate food law updates for both the United States and European Union. Recognizing the globalness of the modem food system, these updates have served an invaluable role in keeping scholars and practitioners abreast of the world\u27s leading food regulatory systems. China\u27s emergence as a developed, modem food regulatory system with the potential of being a leading food regulatory system makes sense given its position as a world economic powerhouse. China\u27s role in the recent food safety debate over the veterinary drug ractopamine hydrochloride points to the increasingly visible leadership by China in international food law debates that are both complex and polarizing. The central issue confronting China\u27s development of food law is whether it can move fast enough in a complex modem food system to create, refine, and streamline a food regulatory regime that befits its place as a world-leading economy

Assessing the Relative Influence and Efficacy of Public and Private Food Safety Regulation Regimes: Comparing Codex and Global GAP Standards

An extensive global system of private food regulation is under construction, one that exceeds conventional regulation, thought of as being driven by public authorities like FDA and USDA in the U.S. or the Food Standards Agency in the UK. Agrifood and grocer organizations, in concert with some farming groups, have been the primary designers of this new food regulatory regime. These groups have established alliances that compete with national regulators in complex ways. This article analyzes the relationship between public and private sources of food safety regulation by examining standards adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a food safety organization jointly run by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization and GlobalG.A.P., a farm assurance program created in the late 1990s by supermarket chains and their major suppliers which has now expanded into a global certifying coalition. While Codex standards are adopted, often as written, by national food safety regulators who are principal drivers of the standard setting process, customers for agricultural products in many countries now demand evidence of GlobalG.A.P. certification as a prerequisite for doing business. This article tests not only the durability and strength of private sector standard setting in the food safety system, but also the desirability of that system as an alternative to formal, governmental processes embodied, for our purposes, in the standards adopted by Codex. In many cases, official standards and GlobalG.A.P. standards clash in ways that implicate not only food safety but the flow of agricultural products in the global trading system. The article analyzes current weaknesses in both regimes and possibilities for change that will better reconcile the two competing systems

Shedding New Light on Multinational Corporations and Human Rights: Promises and Limits of “Blockchainizing” the Global Supply Chain

Over the last few decades, advances in transportation and production technology, in conjunction with economic globalization and the emergence of multinational corporations, have consolidated fragmented production processes into long and complex supply chains across jurisdictions. While there are benefits to such global supply chains (“GSCs”), the prevalence of human rights violations attributable to information asymmetry, as well as rule of law gaps between different jurisdictions, has been a constant challenge. Modern slavery, child abuse, harsh working conditions, low wages, and other problems have reoccurred in the factories of upstream suppliers in the global South and have been systemically ignored by buyers in the global North. As such, how to alleviate human rights abuses along GSCs is indeed a daunting problem. Today, various public, private, and hybrid approaches have been designed and implemented at different levels by different actors to address GSC human rights challenges, such as the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (“UNGPs”), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (“OECD”) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the United Kingdom’s Modern Slavery Act, the United States’ Dodd-Frank Act, the Responsible Business Alliance Codes of Conduct, and the Social Accountability 8000 International Standard. However, these public, private, and hybrid governance mechanisms have grown more ineffective and inefficient due to—again—information asymmetry, and rule of law gaps. A stronger approach that is premised upon transparency and traceability in the GSC is urgently needed. To fill these gaps, the recent emergence of distributed ledger technologies (commonly referred to as blockchain) may offer a promising disintermediation step toward a “technological fix” to GSCs’ human rights challenges. To assess such a possibility from both a theoretical and a practical perspective, we first examine in Section II the characteristics, benefits, and cross-border spillover effects of GSCs, as well as human rights violations by multinational corporations and their power and responsibilities. Section III illuminates the ineffectiveness of existing governance models and regulatory measures, at both the international and national levels, and identifies information asymmetry and rule of law gaps as fundamental flaws. This finding leads us to examine the extent to which blockchain can serve as a governance tool along GSCs. Section IV discusses how the key features of blockchain—transparency, traceability, data consistency and security, authenticity, and completeness—can alleviate problems of information asymmetry, rule of law gaps, and corporate compliance along GSCs, further helping to ameliorate transnational human rights issues. Nevertheless, while “blockchainizing” GSCs seems to have the potential to overcome challenges of public and private governance, some normative and technical limits and risks remain to be addressed, such as adequate infrastructural support, scalability, cybersecurity, and the “garbage in, garbage out” conundrum

Assessing the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life for Outcome Measurement in Stroke Rehabilitation: Minimal Detectable Change and Clinically Important Difference

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study was conducted to establish the minimal detectable change (MDC) and clinically important differences (CIDs) of the physical category of the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale in patients with stroke.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>MDC and CIDs scores were calculated from the data of 74 participants enrolled in randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of two rehabilitation programs in patients with stroke. These participants received treatments for 3 weeks and underwent clinical assessment before and after treatment. To obtain test-retest reliability for calculating MDC, another 25 patients with chronic stroke were recruited. The MDC was calculated from the standard error of measurement (SEM) to indicate a real change with 95% confidence for individual patients (MDC₉₅). Distribution-based and anchor-based methods were adopted to triangulate the ranges of minimal CIDs. The percentage of scale width was calculated by dividing the MDC and CIDs by the total score range of each physical category. The percentage of patients exceeding MDC₉₅and minimal CIDs was also reported.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The MDC₉₅of the mobility, self-care, and upper extremity (UE) function subscales were 5.9, 4.0, and 5.3 respectively. The minimal CID ranges for these 3 subscales were 1.5 to 2.4, 1.2 to 1.9, and 1.2 to 1.8. The percentage of patients exceeding MDC₉₅and minimal CIDs of the mobility, self-care, and UE function subscales were 9.5% to 28.4%, 6.8% to 28.4%, and 12.2% to 33.8%, respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The change score of an individual patient has to reach 5.9, 4.0, and 5.3 on the 3 subscales to indicate a true change. The mean change scores of a group of patients with stroke on these subscales should reach the lower bound of CID ranges of 1.5 (6.3% scale width), 1.2 (6.0% scale width), and 1.2 (6.0% scale width) to be regarded as clinically important change. This information may facilitate interpretations of patient-reported outcomes after stroke rehabilitation. Future research is warranted to validate these findings.</p