Abstract
This chapter assesses whether nudging techniques can be argued to be a less restrictive but equally effective way to regulate diets in EU law, when contrasted to classical information-related or content-related regulation. It has been argued that nudging techniques, due to their freedom-preserving nature, might influence the proportionality test in such a way that authorities need to give preference to nudging techniques over content-related or information regulation. We will illustrate on the example of EU food law how behavioural sciences have first altered the EU food law’s goal from the mere provision of safety to also steering behaviour towards healthier diets. In line with this development, the regulatory toolbox advanced beyond the traditional dichotomy of content-related vs. information-related regulation, eventually adding nudging as a third way to regulate. Drawing on previous works of legal scholars we will then present the hypothesis that nudging techniques, according to their choice preserving nature on the one hand and steering character on the other, may be less restrictive but equally effective when contrasted with information-related or content-related regulation. With reference to recent CJEU case law that such a claim would better be backed up by scientific evidence, we will evaluate several nudging studies in the area of food that test the effectiveness of this approach. We will illustrate that, while nudging indeed has a choice-preserving nature and therefore might be less restrictive, it may also be classified under certain circumstances equally effective to information-related regulation. The EU judiciary has introduced an interpretation of the proportionality principle which requires a general preference for information-related rules. The evidence presented, however, may call for a different interpretation of the proportionality principle in some cases to the end that it may require policy makers in the EU to primarily use nudges instead of information-related regulation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Reisch and Gwozdz (2013).
- 2.
Reisch and Sunstein (2014).
- 3.
Reisch and Gwozdz (2013).
- 4.
CJEU, case C-262/02, Commission v. French Republic, ECLI:EU:C:2004:431, para 34.
- 5.
- 6.
Krapohl (2007).
- 7.
- 8.
See Purnhagen (2015b), p. 903.
- 9.
For a general account from the perspective of EU food law see also Recital 41 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. For a more thorough assessment see Purnhagen and van Herpen (2017).
- 10.
Recital 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.
- 11.
For further substantiation of this claim see Purnhagen et al. (2016).
- 12.
Liu et al. (2014).
- 13.
Kahneman (2011).
- 14.
van Kleef et al. (2014).
- 15.
Provencher et al. (2009).
- 16.
- 17.
Reisch and Gwozdz (2013).
- 18.
Thaler and Sunstein (2003).
- 19.
Dayan and Bar-Hillel (2011).
- 20.
van Kleef et al. (2012).
- 21.
Wansink and Hanks (2013), p. e77055.
- 22.
Bhargava and Loewenstein (2015).
- 23.
- 24.
Wilkinson (2013).
- 25.
Gold and Lichtenberg (2012).
- 26.
Johnson et al. (2012).
- 27.
Kahneman (2011).
- 28.
Lynch and Zauberman (2006).
- 29.
van Kleef et al. (2012), p. 1072.
- 30.
Miller et al. (2016).
- 31.
Brown and Aradhna (2004).
- 32.
Johnson and Goldstein (2003).
- 33.
Kahneman et al. (1991).
- 34.
Downs et al. (2009).
- 35.
- 36.
Liu et al. (2014).
- 37.
ECJ, cases 8/55, Fédération Charbonnière, ECLI:EU:C:1956:11.
- 38.
Fisher (2007), p. 211.
- 39.
Purnhagen (2013), p. 715.
- 40.
See on the Cassis de Dijon principle Purnhagen (2014a), p. 315 ff.
- 41.
Usher (2001).
- 42.
Usher (2001).
- 43.
Purnhagen (2014a), p. 324 f. with further reference.
- 44.
See to this end Casey et al. (2010), p. 1077 ff., esp. p. 1081 f.
- 45.
Franck and Purnhagen (2013).
- 46.
We are grateful to Harry Bremmers to point this out to us.
- 47.
CJEU, case C-195/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:361. “In Teekanne, the Court of Justice held that the labelling of foodstuffs may not give the impression that an ingredient is present in a product where it is in fact not present, and this is apparent solely from the list of ingredients on the packaging. The judgment marks a significant realignment of previous cases that had considered the behaviour of consumers regarding the list of ingredients. In prior case law the Court had found consumers to be adequately protected if they had the possibility to gather the respective information from the list of ingredients. In Teekanne, the Court stipulated that such information of the ingredients list is not able to “correct” a “consumer’s erroneous or misleading impression” created by the “overall labelling” taken as a whole. The ruling is potentially the first case in a series of judgments that understands the “average consumer” in a less normative way, and opens up to arguments about the real-world vulnerability levels of consumers.” (Excerpt from Schebesta and Purnhagen 2016, p. 590).
- 48.
Schebesta and Purnhagen (2016), pp. 590 and 593.
- 49.
See Harbo (2010).
- 50.
Tridimas(1999), p. 68.
- 51.
Tridimas (1999), p. 68.
- 52.
Purnhagen (2014b), chapter 7, para 23.
- 53.
Harbo (2010).
- 54.
See e.g. CJEU, case 66/82, Fromancais v Forma, ECLI:EU:C:1983:42, para 8.
- 55.
We acknowledge that, to our knowledge, the Court has so far never applied all four features in one case.
- 56.
CJEU, case C-203/96, Dusseldorp, ECLI:EU:C:1998:316, para 44.
- 57.
CJEU, case 152/78, Commission/France, ECLI:EU:C:1980:187, para 15 ff.
- 58.
CJEU, case 298/87, Smanor, ECLI:EU:C:1988:415, para 15.
- 59.
CJEU, case 178/84, Commission/Germany, ECLI:EU:C:1987:126, para 28.
- 60.
Schweizer (2016), pp. 93–111.
- 61.
The following section is a translated and expanded version of a paragraph piece published earlier in German in Purnhagen and Reisch (2016), p. 650.
- 62.
Schweizer (2016).
- 63.
De Ridder (2014).
- 64.
Alberto and Salazar (2012).
- 65.
Maziak and Ward (2009).
- 66.
Jeffery and Utter (2003).
- 67.
Thow et al. (2014).
- 68.
Stuckler and Nestle (2012).
- 69.
Hallsworth and Sanders (2016), p. 113.
- 70.
Bucher et al. (2016).
- 71.
Wilson et al. (2015).
- 72.
Wilson et al. (2016).
- 73.
Nørnberg et al. (2015).
- 74.
Jung and Wooseong (2011).
- 75.
van Kleef et al. (2015).
- 76.
Purnhagen and Reisch (2016), pp. 647–648.
- 77.
Id.
References
Alberto R, Salazar V (2012) Libertarian paternalism and the dangers of nudging consumers. King’s Law J 23(1):51–67
Bhargava S, Loewenstein G (2015) Behavioural economics and public policy 102: beyond nudging. Am Econ Rev 105(5):396–401
Brown CL, Aradhna K (2004) The sceptical shopper: a metacognitive account for the effects of default options on choice. J Consum Res 31(3):529–539
Bucher T, Collins C, Rollo ME, McCaffrey TA, de Vlieger N, van der Bend D, Truby H, Perez-Cueto FJ (2016) Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: a systematic review of positional influences on food choice. Br J Nutr 115(12):2252–2263
Casey D, Lawless J, Wall P (2010) A tale of two crises: the Belgian and Irish Dioxin contamination incidents. Br Food J 112:1077–1091
Dayan E, Bar-Hillel M (2011) Nudge to nobesity II: menu positions influence food orders. Judgm Decis Mak 6(4):333–342
de Ridder D (2014) Nudging for beginners. A shortlist of issues in urgent need of research. Eur Health Psychol 16(1):2–6
Downs JS, Loewenstein G, Wisdom J (2009) Strategies for promoting healthier food choices. Am Econ Rev 99(2):159–164
Duivenvoorde B (2015) The consumer benchmarks in the unfair commercial practices directive. Springer, Heidelberg
Fisher E (2007) Risk regulation and administrative constitutionalism. Hart, Oxford
Franck J-U, Purnhagen K (2013) Homo economics, behavioural sciences, and economic regulation: on the concept of man in internal market regulation and its normative basis. In: Mathis K (ed) Law and economics in Europe: foundations and applications. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 329–365
Gold A, Lichtenberg P (2012) Don’t call me “nudge”: the ethical obligation to use effective interventions to promote public health. Am J Bioeth 12:18–20
Hallsworth M, Sanders M (2016) Nudge: recent developments in behavioural science and public policy. In: Spotswood F (ed) Beyond behaviour change: key issues, interdisciplinary approaches and future directions. Policy Press, Bristol, pp 113–133
Harbo T-I (2010) The function of the proportionality principle in EU law. Eur Law J 16:158–185
Jeffery RW, Utter J (2003) The changing environment and population obesity in the United States. Obes Res 11(10):12S–22S
Johnson EJ, Goldstein D (2003) Do defaults save lives? Science 302:1338–1339
Johnson EJ, Shu SB, Dellaert BG, Fox C, Goldstein DG, Hauble G, Larrick RP, Payne JW, Peters E, Schkade D, Wansink B, Weber EU (2012) Beyond nudges: tools of choice architecture. Mark Lett 23:487–504
Jung D, Wooseong J (2011) Nudge: a tool for better policy impacts and its limitations under various policy contexts. Public Adm Rev 71(4):653–656
Just D, Wansink B (2010) Better school meals on a budget: using behavioural economics and food psychology to improve meal selection. Choices 24(3):1–6
Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York
Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1991) Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. J Econ Perspect 5(1):193–206
Krapohl S (2007) Thalidomide, BSE and the single market: a historical-institutionalist approach to regulatory regimes in the European Union. Eur J Polit Res 46(1):25–46
Li M, Chapman G (2014) Carrots by default: are healthy defaults a blessing or a curse? Adv Consum Res 42:2–5
Liu PJ, Wisdom J, Roberto CA, Liu LJ, Ubel PA (2014) Using behavioural economics to design more effective food policies to address obesity. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 36(1):6–24
Lynch JG Jr, Zauberman G (2006) When do you want it? Time, decisions, and public policy. J Public Policy Mark 25(1):67–78
Maziak W, Ward KD (2009) From health as a rational choice to health as an affordable choice. Am J Public Health 99(12):2134–2139
Miller GF, Gupta S, Kropp JD, Grogan KA, Mathews A (2016) The effects of pre-ordering and behavioural nudges on National School Lunch Program participants’ food item selection. J Econ Psychol 55:4–16
Nørnberg TR, Riebeling T, Houlby L, Rohden Skov L, Peréz-Cueto FJA (2015) Choice architecture interventions for increased vegetable intake and behaviour change in a school setting: a systematic review. Perspect Public Health 136(3):132–142
Poncibò C, Incardona R (2007) The average consumer, the unfair commercial practices directive, and the cognitive revolution. J Consum Policy 30:21–38
Provencher V, Polivy J, Herman CP (2009) Perceived healthiness of food. If it’s healthy, you can eat more! Appetite 52(2):340–344
Purnhagen K (2013) Beyond threats to health: may consumers’ interests in safety trump fundamental freedoms in information on foodstuffs? Reflections on Berger v Freistaat Bayern. Eur Law Rev 38:711–719
Purnhagen K (2014a) The Virtue of Cassis de Dijon 25 years later. In: Purnhagen K, Rott P (eds) Varieties of European economic law and regulation. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 315–342
Purnhagen K (2014b) Europarecht. C.H. Beck, Munich
Purnhagen K (2015a) Why do we need responsive regulation and behavioural research in EU internal market law? In: Mathis K (ed) European perspectives on behavioural law and economics. Springer, Heidelberg, p 51 et seqq
Purnhagen K (2015b) The EU’s precautionary principle in food law is an information tool! Eur Bus Law Rev 26(6):919–920
Purnhagen K, Reisch L (2016) Nudging Germany – Herausforderungen für eine verhaltensbasierte Regulierung. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht: 629–655
Purnhagen K, van Herpen E (2017) Can Bonus Packs Mislead Consumers? A demonstration of how behavioural consumer research can inform unfair commercial practices law on the example of the ECJ’s Mars Judgement. J Consum Policy 40:217–234
Purnhagen K, van Herpen E, van Kleef E (2016) The potential use of visual packaging elements as nudges. In: Mathis K, Tor A (eds) Nudging – possibilities, limitations and applications in European law and economics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 197–216
Reisch LA, Gwozdz W (2013) Smart defaults and soft nudges. How insights from behavioral economics can inform effective nutrition policy. In: Scholderer J, Brunsø K (eds) Marketing, food, and the consumer. Festschrift in Honour of Klaus Grunert. Pearson Custom, New Jersey, pp 189–200
Reisch LA, Sunstein CR (2014) Redesigning cockpits. J Consum Policy 37(3):333–339
Schebesta H, Purnhagen K (2016) The behaviour of the average consumer: a little less normativity and a little more reality in the court’s case law? Reflections on Teekanne. Eur Law Rev 41(4):590–598
Schweizer M (2016) Nudging and the principle of proportionality-obliged to nudge? In: Mathis K, Tor A (eds) Nudging - possibilities, limitations and applications in European law and economics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 93–119
Sibony A-L (2015) Can EU consumer law benefit from behavioural insights? An analysis of the unfair practices directive. In: Mathis K (ed) European perspectives on behavioural law and economics. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 71–106
Stuckler D, Nestle M (2012) Big food, food systems, and global health. PLoS Med 9(6):e1001242
Szajkowska A (2012) Regulating food law. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2003) Libertarian paternalism. Am Econ Rev 93:175–179
Thow AM, Downs S, Jan S (2014) A systematic review of the effectiveness of food taxes and subsidies to improve diets: understanding the recent evidence. Nutr Rev 72(9):551–565
Tridimas T (1999) Proportionality in community law: searching for the appropriate standard of scrutiny. In: Ellis E (ed) The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe. Hart, Oxford, pp 65–84
Usher JA (2001) Disclosure rules (information) as a primary tool in the doctrine on measures having an equivalent effect. In: Grundmann S, Kerber W, Weatherill S (eds) Party autonomy and the role of information in the internal market. de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 151–161
van Aaken A (2015) Judge the nudge: in search of the legal limits of paternalistic nudging in the EU. In: Sibony A-L, Alemanno A (eds) Nudge and the law—a European perspective. Hart, Oxford, pp 83–112
van Bavel R, Herrmann B, Esposito G, Proestakis A (2013) Applying behavioural sciences to EU policy-making. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports 2013. Available http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/information_sources/docs/30092013_jrc_scientific_policy_report_en.pdf
van Kleef E, Otten K, van Trijp HCM (2012) Healthy snacks at the checkout counter. A lab and field study on the impact of shelf arrangement and assortment structure on consumer choices. BMC Public Health 12:1072
van Kleef E, Kavvouris C, van Trijp HCM (2014) The unit size effect of indulgent food: how eating smaller-sized items signals impulsivity and makes consumers eat less. Psychol Health 29(9):1081–1103
van Kleef E, Broek O, van Trijp H (2015) Exploiting the spur of the moment to enhance healthy consumption: verbal prompting to increase fruit choices in a self-service restaurant. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being 7(2):149–166
Wansink B, Hanks A (2013) Slim by design: serving healthy foods first in buffet lines improves overall meal selection. PloS One 8(10):e77055
Wilkinson TM (2013) Nudging and manipulation. Polit Stud 61(2):341–355
Wilson AL, Bogomolova S, Buckley E (2015) Lack of efficacy of a salience nudge for substituting selection of lower-calorie for higher-calorie milk in the workplace. Nutrients 7(6):4336–4344
Wilson AL, Buckley E, Buckley JD, Bogomolova S (2016) Nudging healthier food and beverage choices through salience and priming. Evidence from a systematic review. Food Qual Prefer 51:47–64
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Purnhagen, K., van Kleef, E. (2018). Commanding to “Nudge” via the Proportionality Principle?. In: Bremmers, H., Purnhagen, K. (eds) Regulating and Managing Food Safety in the EU. Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77045-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77045-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77043-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77045-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)