It's always nice when I run across a piece of scholarship that appears to confirm my instincts (in this case, that U.S. and EU regulation are not really all that different):
The regulation of health and environmental risks has generated transatlantic controversy concerning precaution and the precautionary principle (PP). Conventional wisdom sees the European Union endorsing the PP and proactively regulating uncertain risks, while the United States opposes the PP and waits for evidence of harm before regulating. Without favouring either approach, this paper critically analyses the conventional depiction of transatlantic divergence. First, it reviews several different versions of the PP and their different implications. Second, it broadens the transatlantic comparison of precaution beyond the typical focus on single-risk examples, such as genetically modified foods. Through case studies, including hormones in beef and milk production and mad cow disease in beef and in blood donations, as well as reference to a wider array of risks, the paper demonstrates that relative precaution varies enormously. Sometimes the EU is more precautionary than the US (such as regarding hormones in beef), while sometimes the US is more precautionary than the EU (such as regarding mad cow disease in blood). Thus, neither the EU nor the US can claim to be categorically 'more precautionary' than the other. The real pattern is complex and risk-specific. Third, the paper seeks explanations for this complex pattern in five sets of hypotheses: optimal tailoring on the merits, political systems, risk perceptions, trade protectionism, and legal systems. None of these hypotheses fully explains the observed complex pattern of relative transatlantic precaution. The paper concludes that differences in relative precaution depend more on the context of the particular risk than on broad differences in national regulatory regimes.
An ungated version is here: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1985&context=faculty_scholarship
And here is the latest from EU trade commissioner De Gucht on regulatory issues in the TTIP:
If we want a [TTIP] result that makes a difference, we need to look at the way we produce regulation. Can we make the processes more transparent so that we can give useful feedback at the early stages of the regulatory process? Can we encourage the regulators to deepen their relationships so that they brainstorm solutions to new challenges together?
At the same time, if we want to be credible we need to find a critical mass of regulatory solutions for specific sectors.
If – just to give some examples – we can make our car safety standards fit together better…
If we can get rid of double inspections at our pharmaceutical or medical devices plants…
If we can make sure that we implement agreed international rules on finance in a compatible way…
If we can simplify the procedures for approving food products and avoid duplication of inspections in areas where our product safety rules are equivalent…
… then TTIP will have a positive impact on our economies straight away.
