Foodstuffs and medicines as legal categories in the EU and China. Functional foods as a borderline case

The thesis discusses the regulation of foodstuffs and medicines, and particularly the regulation of functional foods. Legal systems investigated are the EU and China. Both are members of the WTO and Codex Alimentarius, which binds European and Chinese rules together. The study uses three Chinese berries as case examples of how product development faces regulation in practice. The berries have traditional uses as herbal medicines. Europe and China have similar nutrition problems to be resolved, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. The three berries might be suitable raw materials for functional foods. Consumer products with health-enhancing functions, such as lowering blood pressure, might legally be classifi ed either as foodstuffs or medicines. The classifi cation will depend on functions and presentation of the product. In our opinion, food and medicine regulation should come closer together so the classifi cation issue would no longer be an issue. Safety of both foodstuffs and medicines is strictly regulated. With medicines, safety is a more relative concept, where benefi ts of the product are compared to side-effects in thorough scientifi c tests and trials. Foods, on the other hand, are not allowed to have side-effects. Hygiene rules and rules on the use of chemicals apply. In China, food safety is currently at focus as China has had several severe food scandals. Newly developed foods are called novel foods, and are specifi cally regulated. The current European novel food regulation from 1997 treats traditional third country products as novel. The Chinese regulation of 2007 also defi nes novel foods as something unfamiliar to a Chinese consumer. The concepts of novel food thus serve a protectionist purpose. As regards marketing, foods are allowed to bear health claims, whereas medicines bear medicinal claims. The separation is legally strict: foods are not to be presented as having medicinal functions. European nutrition and health claim regulation exists since 2006. China also has its regulation on health foods, listing the permitted claims and how to substantiate them. Health claims are allowed only on health foods. The European rules on medicines include separate categories for herbal medicines, traditional herbal medicines, and homeopathic medicines, where there are differing requirements for scientifi c substantiation. The scientifi c and political grounds for the separate categories provoke criticism. At surface, the Chinese legal system seems similar to the European one. To facilitate trade, China has enacted modern laws. Laws are needed as the country moves from planned economy to market economy: ‘rule of law’ needs to replace ‘rule of man’. Instead of being citizens, Chinese people long were subordinates to the Emperor. Confucius himself advised to avoid confl ict. Still, Chinese people do not and cannot always trust the legal system, as laws are enforced in an inconsistent manner, and courts are weak. In China, there have been problems with confl icting national and local laws. In Europe, the competence of the EU vs. the competence of the Member States is still not resolved, even though the European Commission often states that free trade requires harmonisation. Food and medicine regulation is created by international organisations, food and medicine control agencies, standards agencies, companies and their organisations. Regulation can be divided in ‘hard law’ and ‘soft law’. One might claim that hard law is in crisis, as soft law is gaining importance. If law is out of fashion, regulation certainly isn’t. In the future, ‘law’ might mean a process where rules and incentives are created by states, NGOs, companies, consumers, and other stakeholders. ‘Law’ might thus refer to a constant negotiation between public and private actors. Legal principles such as transparency, equal treatment, and the right to be heard would still be important.

Open Environmental Information Upon Disclosure Request in China: The Paradox of Legal Mobilization

Taking a realist view that law is one form of politics, this dissertation studies the roles of citizens and organizations in mobilizing the law to request government agencies to disclose environmental information in China, and during this process, how the socio-legal field interacts with the political-legal sphere, and what changes have been brought about during their interactions. This work takes a socio-legal approach and applies methodologies of social science and legal analysis. It aims to understand the paradox of why and how citizens and entities have been invoking the law to access environmental information despite the fact that various obstacles exist and the effectiveness of the new mechanism of environmental information disclosure still remains low. The study is largely based on the 28 cases and eight surveys of environmental information disclosure requests collected by the author. The cases and surveys analysed in this dissertation all occurred between May 2008, when the OGI Regulations and the OEI Measures came into effect, and August 2012 when the case collection was completed. The findings of this study have shown that by invoking the rules of law made by the authorities to demand government agencies disclosing environmental information, the public, including citizens, organizations, law firms, and the media, have strategically created a repercussive pressure upon the authorities to act according to the law. While it is a top-down process that has established the mechanism of open government information in China, it is indeed the bottom-up activism of the public that makes it work. Citizens and organizations’ use of legal tactics to push government agencies to disclose environmental information have formed not only an end of accessing the information but more a means of making government agencies accountable to their legal obligations. Law has thus played a pivotal role in enabling citizen participation in the political process. Against the current situation in China that political campaigns, or politicization, from general election to collective actions, especially contentious actions, are still restrained or even repressed by the government, legal mobilization, or judicialization, that citizens and organizations use legal tactics to demand their rights and push government agencies to enforce the law, become de facto an alternative of political participation. During this process, legal actions have helped to strengthen the civil society, make government agencies act according to law, push back the political boundaries, and induce changes in the relationship between the state and the public. In the field of environmental information disclosure, citizens and organizations have formed a bottom-up social activism, though limited in scope, using the language of law, creating progressive social, legal and political changes. This study emphasizes that it is partial and incomplete to understand China’s transition only from the top-down policy-making and government administration; it is also important to observe it from the bottom-up perspective that in a realistic view law can be part of politics and legal mobilization, even when utterly apolitical, can help to achieve political aims as well. This study of legal mobilization in the field of environmental information disclosure also helps us to better understand the function of law: law is not only a tool for the authorities to regulate and control, but inevitably also a weapon for the public to demand government agencies to work towards their obligations stipulated by the laws issued by themselves.