Abstract
For several years, the official European method for deciding whether or not shellfish were fit for human consumption was the mouse bioassay, which was eventually replaced by chemical testing. In this paper, we examine the process of this change, looking at how devices of social, technical, and organisational risk management were re-negotiated locally, nationally, and across the continent. We also show how the political decision to replace a precautionary standard with a management-vigilance device was the result of various dynamics. These included unpredictable events (sanitary crises, unknown toxins, etc.), enhanced scientific knowledge, collective mobilisations (corporate bodies, public controversies), and multi-level statutory, commercial, and ethical orders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This article was written as part of the OSQUAR project (“a dynamic approach to the Arcachon Basin”: 2009–2012) coordinated by Benoît Sautour (Bordeaux 1 University) and financed by the Aquitaine regional authority (http://rrla.epoc.u-bordeaux1.fr/).
Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) shall henceforth be referred to as “chemical testing” and “chemical analysis”.
Our empirical data was composed of twenty-nine semi-structured interviews with institutional, political, professional, scientific, and associative stakeholders within the Arcachon area. A collection of 45 different documents from 2003 to 2010—mainly expert reports from bodies such as Afssa, DGAL, and Ifremer—as well as a press review (2005–2010) were also used to gain greater understanding of the process under study.
Bans on shellfish sales cannot be lifted until there have been two consecutive negative biological tests to indicate that products are of an acceptable standard (Decree No. 94-340: 28th April 1994).
Marine biotoxins are the result of micro-algae being consumed by shellfish (oysters, mussels, clams, etc.) that are not harmful to the shellfish themselves. Because there are no outward signs of infection, they are undetectable by either producers or consumers. There are currently around 70 species of micro-algae listed as capable of generating phycotoxins (nine families), but new toxins continue to appear in French coastal areas (http://www.anses.fr/index.htm).
Ifremer is a French Government research facility, jointly managed by the French Ministries for Higher Education and Research, Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, Agriculture, Food, and Forests.
Oyster production is a key industry within the Arcachon Basin, and contributes greatly to tourism and house sales. Arcachon represents 8.5 % of all French oyster production (315 sites, with a total surface area of 720 hectares). Dating back to the nineteenth Century, the Basin is the biggest producer of oyster larvae in Europe, supplying 50 % of France’s spats. The socio-economic stakes attached to oyster production are high, both directly (700 jobs depending on the industry, and a turnover in 2010 of forty million euros) and indirectly. Oysters are also an important part of Arcachon's tourist industry, growing along with visitor numbers following the construction of the first train line in 1857. All of these issues contribute to a strong heritage dimension (Rivaud and Cazals 2012). Oyster production is central to the identity of the area, due to its strong presence in local waters (oyster beds, cabins, ports) (Dupuyoo 2005).
As an example, the 2010 film “Little White Lies”, filmed in Paris and Arcachon, shows the activities of holidaymakers staying in villas on the Cap Ferret.
However, mussels (considered the most representative of all shellfish in cases of toxicity) continued to be banned for sale during longer periods, but without the same political and media attention as that generated by the activities of oyster producers.
This action led to video being posted on the internet, and threats of legal action from local elected officials. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhp3ce_le-bassin-d-arcachon-un-paradis-menace_news.
On the 18th May 2006, 250 oyster producers invited locals to an ironically-named "group suicide", where people were able to eat banned oysters. Taking advantage of their parlementary immunity, local officials flouted another ban by selling oysters in Larros.
Oyster producers succeeded in dividing the Basin into zones, meaning that positive tests in one sector did not affect the entire Arcachon area. Analyses were also double-checked to ensure accuracy, and the minimum period between two consecutive tests was reduced from 72 to 48 h, thus limiting interruptions to shellfish sales.
The principle was integrated into the regulations of the European Council (ETS 123), the European Union (Directive 86/609/EEC) and France (Decree 87-848: 19th April 1988).
Codex Alimantarius was created by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). It was officially recognised by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1994.
Development of cost-effective tools for risk management and traceability systems for marine biotoxins in seafood (2005–2008). The project brought together a number of European research labs, including Afssa in France. It was financed by the EU's DG Research and Innovation, in cooperation with DG Sanco.
“Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain on a request from the European Commission on Marine Biotoxins in Shellfish—Summary on regulated marine biotoxines”, The EFSA Journal, 1306, 2009, p. 1.
Present at this meeting were the presidents of both the Arcachon and national shellfish producing groups, the French Minister for Agriculture, the head of the presidential cabinet, the French Prime Minister's health advisor, the head of the Aquitaine regional government, the director of Ifremer, and the director of Afssa.
References
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi: Sage.
Benamouzig, D., & Besançon, J. (2005). Administering an uncertain world: New technical bureaucracies in French health agencies. Sociologie du travail, 47(3), 301–322.
Borraz, O. (2007). Risk and public problems. Journal of Risk Research, 10(7), 941–957.
Borraz, O., Gilbert, C., & Joly, P.-B. (2005). Risques, crises et incertitudes: Pour une analyse critique. Grenoble: MSH-Alpes.
Bronner, G., & Géhin, E. (2010). L’inquiétant principe de précaution. Paris: PUF.
Busca, D. (2010). L’action publique agri-environnementale. La mise en œuvre négociée des dispositifs. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (Eds.). (1991). La science telle qu’elle se fait. Paris: La Découverte.
Chateauraynaud, F. (2009). Public controversies and the Pragmatics of Protest. Toward a Ballistics of collective action. Paper for the Culture Workshop, Harvard University.
Chateauraynaud, F. (2010). Argumentative Convergence as a Reconfigurator in the Trajectories of Risks (A Comparison of Low-Dose and CMR arguments in Controversies on Health and Environment). In Paper for the Workshop “Carcinogens, Mutagens, Reproductive Toxicants: The Politics of Limit Values and Low Doses in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries”, Strasbourg.
Chateauraynaud, F., & Torny, D. (2005). Mobilising around a risk: From alarm raisers to alarm carriers. In Cécile Lahellec (Ed.), Risques et crises alimentaires (pp. 329–339). Paris: Tec&Doc.
Combes, R. D. (2003). The mouse bioassay for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning: a gross misuse of laboratory animals and of scientific methodology”. ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 6(31), 595–610.
Dupuyoo, L. (2005). Autrefois… le Bassin d’Arcachon. Pêcheurs, ostréiculteurs et chasseurs. Cahors: Editions Confluences.
Gilbert, C. (Ed.). (2003). Risques collectifs et situations de crise. Apports de la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Gilbert, C., & Henry, E. (2012). Defining social problems: Tensions between discreet compromise and publicity. Revue française de sociologie, 1(53), 31–54.
Godard, O. (2003). Le principe de précaution comme norme de l’action publique, ou la proportionnalité en question. Revue économique, 6(54), 1245–1276.
Granjou, C. (2007). When precaution becomes discreet. The state and professionals in the co-production of health policy. Politix, 20(78), 135–154.
Granjou, C., & Barbier, M. (2005). Quand l’expertise scientifique construit la précaution: le cas des maladies à prions. Droit et Société, 60, 331–352.
Halpern, C., & Le Galès, P. (2011). No autonomous public policy without ad hoc instruments. Revue française de science politique, 61(1), 43–67.
Lascoumes, P. (1990). Normes juridiques et mise en œuvre des politiques publique. L’Année sociologique, 40, 43–71.
Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Understanding public policy through its instruments. From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1–21.
Lemieux, C. (2007). A quoi sert l’analyse des controverses ? Mil Neuf Cent, 25, 191–212.
Lorrain, D. (2005). Les pilotes invisibles de l’action publique. Le désarroi du politique ? In. P. Lascoumes, P. Le Galès (Eds.), Gouverner par les instruments (pp. 163–197). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
Pierson, P. (2000). Path dependance, increasing returns, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 2(94), 251–267.
Rivaud, A., & Cazals, C. (2012). Pour une vision élargie des performances de la filière ostréicole à partir d’une approche institutionnaliste en termes de patrimoine. Développement durable et territoires, 3(1). http://developpementdurable.revues.org/9168.
Salles, D. (2006). Les défis de l’environnement. Démocratie et efficacité. Paris: Syllepse.
Yasumoto, T., Oshima, Y., & Yamaguchi, M. (1978). Occurrence of a new type of shellfish poisoning in the Tohoku district. Bulletin of the Japanese Society of Fisheries, 11(44), 1249–1255.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roussary, A., Bouet, B. & Salles, D. Of Mice and Men: European Precautionary Standards Challenged by Uncertainty. J Agric Environ Ethics 28, 867–883 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9561-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9561-z