4.7 Review

Does European Union food policy privilege the internet market? Suggestions for a specialized regulatory framework

Journal

FOOD CONTROL
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 705-713

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.07.034

Keywords

Food laws; Internet; Marketing; Dietary supplements; Sampling; Government regulation

Funding

  1. Ministry of Rural Affairs and Consumer Protection of the German federal state of Baden-Wurttemberg (Stuttgart, Germany)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The online food and beverages market has grown rapidly over the past decade and a considerable number of consumers conduct their weekly grocery shopping over the internet. However, in the European Union the online distribution channel has been neglected in regard to food safety, and is even privileged in some aspects, as online shops are not necessarily subjected to inspections, while sampling and analysis is often complicated as the demands in regulation (EC) No 882/2004 cannot be completely fulfilled in distance selling circumstances. For example, the food operator's right to apply for a supplementary expert opinion may be infringed. A literature review shows that this lack of control is evidenced by a prevalence for misleading advertising (especially for nutritional supplements), but may also cause consequences for the health of the consumers (e.g. missing labelling of allergens, microbiological risk if the cooling chain is broken during transport, chemical risk if non-approved ingredients are used or contamination occurs). A solution would be a policy framework that specifically targets the internet market. The mandatory food information should be clearly pointed out on the product web-pages before the purchase is concluded. The food safety authorities should be granted the right to sample products by online order, which also needs to be possible anonymously in cases of reasonable suspicion. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available