The parable of the poisoned pork: Network governance and the 2008 Irish pork dioxin contamination

Abstract

The 2008 contamination of Irish pork with dioxins was one of the most significant recent food safety incidents in the European Union (EU). While the contamination posed no real risk to public health, it tested the efficacy of EU food safety regulation and governance which has been considerably overhauled in the past decade. The exchange of risk information through networks of regulators is an important element of the EU food safety risk management framework. Networks are a much-lauded form of new governance, though they are not without their problems. In this paper, we address the question of why governance networks can fail. We examine this issues using the case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin contamination and explore the reason for the failure to make more substantial use of networks in the governance of that incident. We hypothesize that the reason for such failure may be found in three inherent tensions which exist in the design and management of networks, namely flexibility/stability, inclusiveness/efficiency, and internal/external legitimacy. The paper concludes that by ensuring the external legitimacy of the EU's Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food (RASFF) through increased transparency of communications, the design of RASFF has stifled its internal legitimacy with regard to certain types of important information exchanges.

A Governança de Redes Interorganizacionais: Uma Análise da Tensão entre Eficiência e Inclusão no Processo Decisório

“…Esse é um ponto que suscita reflexão, pois a decisão individual costuma ser mais eficiente, embora em termos de eficácia a decisão em grupo seja superior (Robbins, 2000). (Casey, & Lawless, 2011;Enqvist, Tengö, & Bodin, 2014;Moynihan, 2009), poucos abordaram o tema das tensões da governança, como realizado nesta pesquisa.…”

Regulation and governance versus criminology: Disciplinary divides, intersections, and opportunities

“…This lens diverts attention more typically to a focus on disruptions such as disasters and failures, and to questions such as “What went wrong?” and “Why did this happen?” . While regulatory scholars do focus on discontinuities, they tend to view such exceptional events as highlighting the tensions within, and limitations of, stable regulatory systems (Haines ; Casey & Lawless ; Mills & Koliba ; Hutter & Lloyd‐Bostock 2017), rather than treating them, as criminology often does, as fundamental political challenges to those systems (Calavita & Pontell ; Bradshaw ; Tombs ). Some scholars who straddle these disciplinary boundaries have contributed work that combines both a grasp of institutional process and influence, and a broader sense of the importance of political context (e.g.…”

Compliance with Food Safety Laws in Germany: Food Businesses in Berlin

“…In addition to economic factors such as money and time, they identified lack of trust in food‐safety legislation and enforcement officers and lack of motivation and knowledge with regard to dealing with food laws as barriers to compliance. Some analysts have emphasized that both production behavior and the resulting food quality can only be partially observed and that many agents are involved in the production of food along the supply chain (e.g., Casey and Lawless ; Starbird and Amanor‐Boadu ; Starbird ).…”