IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/bineur/qt4z6868qv.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why is there No Mad Cow Disease in the United States? Comparing the Politics of Food Safety in Europe and the U.S

Author

Listed:
  • Struenck, Christoph

Abstract

This paper compares approaches towards food safety regulation in Europe and the United States. It focuses on mad cow disease and examines how the British Government and the European Union handled the first big crisis in the nineties, juxtaposed to the American response. This worst public health disaster in Europe has led to new agencies and policies. However, these institutional changes do not abolish fragmentation, but extend the existing landscape of regulatory bodies. The paper emphasizes that fragmentation – as the American case shows despite its shortcomings – prevents science from being captured by the state, allows interest groups broader access and ensures a distinct pattern of checks and balances.

Suggested Citation

  • Struenck, Christoph, 2001. "Why is there No Mad Cow Disease in the United States? Comparing the Politics of Food Safety in Europe and the U.S," Institute of European Studies, Working Paper Series qt4z6868qv, Institute of European Studies, UC Berkeley.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:bineur:qt4z6868qv
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4z6868qv.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vogel, David, 2001. "The new politics of risk regulation in Europe," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 35984, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Vogel, David, 1990. "When Consumers Oppose Consumer Protection: The Politics of Regulatory Backlash ," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 449-470, October.
    3. Justin Greenwood & Linda Strangward & Lara Stancich, 1999. "The Capacities of Euro Groups in the Integration Process," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 47(1), pages 127-138, March.
    4. Buonanno, Laurie & Zablotney, Sharon & Keefer, Richard, 2001. "Politics versus Science in the Making of a New Regulatory Regime for Food in Europe," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 5, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Minogue, Martin, 2005. "Apples and Oranges: Problems in the Analysis of Comparative Regulatory Governance," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30589, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    2. Beyer, Andrea R. & Fasolo, Barbara & de Graeff, P.A. & Hillege, H.L., 2015. "Risk attitudes and personality traits predict perceptions of benefits and risks for medicinal products: a field study of European medical assessors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 61210, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Pellegrini, Pablo A., 2013. "What risks and for whom? Argentina's regulatory policies and global commercial interests in GMOs," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 129-138.
    5. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Abels, Gabriele, 2002. "Experts, Citizens, and Eurocrats Towards a Policy Shift in the Governance of Biopolitics in the EU," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 6, December.
    8. Christoph Strünck, 2005. "Mix-Up: Models of Governance and Framing Opportunities in U.S. and EU Consumer Policy," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 203-230, June.
    9. Krapohl, Sebastian & Zurek, Karolina, 2006. "The Perils of Committee Governance: Intergovernmental Bargaining during the BSE Scandal in the European Union," European Integration online Papers (EIoP), European Community Studies Association Austria (ECSA-A), vol. 10, May.
    10. Minogue, Martin, 2005. "Apples and oranges: problems in the analysis of comparative regulatory governance," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(2-3), pages 195-214, May.
    11. Boakye, Derrick & Sarpong, David & Mordi, Chima, 2022. "Regulatory review of new product innovation: Conceptual clarity and future research directions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    12. Jocelyn Kellam & Luke Nottage, 2008. "Europeanisation of Product Liability in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Preliminary Empirical Benchmark," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 217-241, June.
    13. David Vogel, 2002. "The WTO, International Trade and Environmental Protection: European and American Perspectives," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 34, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    14. Faulkner, Alex, 2009. "Regulatory policy as innovation: Constructing rules of engagement for a technological zone of tissue engineering in the European Union," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 637-646, May.
    15. Gregory Shaffer & Mark Pollack, 2004. "Regulating Between National Fears and Global Disciplines:Agricultural Biotechnology in the EU," Jean Monnet Working Papers 10, Jean Monnet Chair.
    16. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Ana Santos & Jose Caetano, 2008. "EU regulation concerning genetically modified products: an issue of food security or a measure of disguised protectionism?," CEFAGE-UE Working Papers 2008_10, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE (Portugal).
    18. Thomas Bernauer & Aseem Prakash & Liam F. Beiser‐McGrath, 2020. "Do exemptions undermine environmental policy support? An experimental stress test on the odd‐even road space rationing policy in India," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 481-500, July.
    19. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/5404 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:bineur:qt4z6868qv. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://escholarship.org/uc/ies/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.