Advertisement

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 483–508 | Cite as

Can food safety policy-making be both scientifically and democratically legitimated? If so, how?

  • Erik MillstoneEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper provides an analysis of the evolution of thinking and talking about the role of scientific knowledge and expertise in food safety policy-making, and in risk policy-making more generally from the late 19th century to the present day. It highlights the defining characteristics of several models that have been used to represent and interpret the relations between policy-makers and expert scientific advisors and between scientific and political considerations. Both conceptual and empirical strengths and weaknesses of those models are identified, focusing in particular on the ways in which they deal with scientific uncertainties and social choices. By drawing on both empirical evidence and conceptual analysis, a novel and more realistic model is provided along with an account of some conditions for food safety policy-making achieving both scientific and democratic legitimacy.

Keywords

democratic legitimacy public policy science scientific legitimacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ACRE, The Criteria Used by ACRE to Gauge Harm When Giving Advice on the Risks of Releasing Genetically Modified Organisms to the Environment, Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London (2002) available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/ENVIRONMENT/acre/harm/pdf/acre_harm_report.pdf accessed 30 April 2007
  2. AgBioWorld, “Analysis and Comments on The Farm Scale Evaluations of GM Crops in UK.” http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotech-art/farmscaleevaluations.html (2003)Google Scholar
  3. Bernstein, M. H., Regulating Business by Independent Commission (Princeton University Press, 1955)Google Scholar
  4. Blair, T., Hansard, House of Commons, 18 June 2003, questions to the Prime Minister (2003)Google Scholar
  5. CCGP Working Group, Report of the Working Group on Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety, to the Codex Committee on General Principles, Brussels (26–28 September 2006)Google Scholar
  6. CCRVDF, Discussion Paper on Risk Analysis Principles and Methodologies in the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, CX/RVDF 01/9.CCRVDF (2001)Google Scholar
  7. CCRVDF, Report of the Sixteenth Session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, Cancun, Mexico, May 2006, to the CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION, Twenty-ninth Session, July 2006, ALINORM 06/29/31, Appendix VIII (2006)Google Scholar
  8. Codex Alimentarius Commission, Procedural Manual, 13th ed., available at http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/006/Y4971E/Y4971E00.HTM (see esp. Appendix IV, Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Application in the Framework of the Codex Alimentarius, paras 13–16, pp, 103–104) (2003)Google Scholar
  9. Comte, A. The Fundamental Principles of the Positive Philosophy: Being the First Two Chapters of the “Cours de philosophie positive,” translated by P. Descours and H. G. Jones (Watts, London, 1905)Google Scholar
  10. Comte, A., Auguste Comte: choix de textes et etude du systeme philosophique, by Comte – compiled by Hubert R. (Louis-Michaud, Paris, 1913)Google Scholar
  11. Comte, A., in K. Thompson (ed.) The Foundation of Sociology (Nelson, 1976)Google Scholar
  12. Crossley, S. J., Review of the Working Procedures of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR), WHO and FAO, Rome February 2002, page 5 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. DEFRA, The History of the Farm-Scale Evaluations, 2005, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/background/history.htm accessed 30 April 2007Google Scholar
  14. Environmental Audit Select Committee, GM Foods – Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials: the Government Response, 10 May 2004, House of Commons, London Report number HC 564; available http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvaud/cmenvaud.htm (2004)Google Scholar
  15. Erlichman, J., “Food Watchdog Denies Conflict of Interest,” Guardian (20 July 1987), 4Google Scholar
  16. European Commission, Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM (2000) 1 (Brussels, 2 February 2000)Google Scholar
  17. Ezrahi Y. (1990) The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy. Mass. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Friends of the Earth, Government to Publish the Final Results of the Farm Scale Evaluations of Genetically Modified Crops, http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/media_briefing/government_to_publish_the.pdf (2003)Google Scholar
  19. Funtowicz S., Ravetz J. (1993) Science for the Post-Normal Age. Futures 25S:739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens, A., Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber, CUP (1971)Google Scholar
  21. Goldberg L. (1985) Food Toxicology: Time for an Agonizing Reappraisal. In: Gibson G., Walker R. (Eds.) Food Toxicology: Real or Imaginary Problems? Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Gummer, J., Hansard 21 May 1990, Volume 173, No. 110, column 82 (1990)Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J., “The Scientization of Politics and Public Opinion,” first published in Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie, Suhrkamp Verlag, 1968, and translated in English in Toward a Rational Society (Beacon Press, Boston, Mass., 1971), pp. 62–80Google Scholar
  24. House of Lords, EC Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture, Second Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities, Session 1998–1999, HL 11-I (The Stationery Office, London, 1998)Google Scholar
  25. Jasanoff S. (1987) Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science 7:195–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jasanoff, S., The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy-Makers (Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
  27. Jasanoff S. (2000) Between Risk and Precaution – Reassessing the Future of GM Crops. Journal of Risk Research 3(3):277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jasanoff, S. and B. Wynne, “Science and Decision-making,” in S. Rayner and E. L. Malone (eds.), Human Choices and Climate Change: Volume 1 – the Societal Framework (Battelle Press, Ohio, 1998)Google Scholar
  29. JECFA, JECFA 62nd Meeting February 2004, Summary report, 2004, at: http://www.who.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/summaries/en/Summary62.pdf (available as of 30 April 2007)Google Scholar
  30. Koëter, H., “Responding to New and Emerging Risks: How can Research Help?” Speech from the Deputy Executive Director and Director of Science of European food Safety Authority, to Conference on New and Emerging Science and Technology – creating New Opportunities through European Research, Department of Trade and Industry, London 21 Sept 2005, see http://www.nestconference.com/programme.html (2005)Google Scholar
  31. Kraft, V., The Vienna Circle: The Origin of Neo-positivism (Greenwood, Westport Conmnecticut, 1969); previously published as Der Wiener Kreis: der Ursprung des Neopositivismus, Springer Verlag, Vienna 1950Google Scholar
  32. Leatherhead Food International, The Food Additives Market: Global Trends and Developments (3rd ed., 2005)Google Scholar
  33. Levidow L., Carr S. (2000) Unsound Science? Trans-Atlantic Regulatory Disputes over GM Crops. International Journal of Biotechnology 2:257–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levidow L., Carr S., Wield D., von Schomberg R. (1997) European Biotechnology Regulation: Framing the Risk Assessment of a Herbicide-Tolerant Crop. Science, Technology and Human Values 22:472–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Losey J. E., Rayor L. S., Carter M. E. (1999) Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch Larvae. Nature 399:214ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Millstone E. (1986) Food Additives. Penguin Books, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  37. Millstone, E., E. Brunner, and S. Mayer “Beyond Substantial Equivalence.” Nature, 401 (7 October 1999), 525–526Google Scholar
  38. Millstone, E., P. van Zwanenberg, C. Marris, L. Levidow, and H. Torgersen, Science in Trade Disputes Related to Potential Risk: Comparative Case Studies, European Science and Technology Observatory Technical Report Series, available at http://esto.jrc.es/detailshort.cfm?ID_report=1203 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. Pickering, M., Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography – Vol 1 (Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar
  40. Saint-Simon, Comte de, in K. Taylor (ed.), Henri Saint-Simon, 1760–1825: Selected Writings on Science, Industry and Social Organisation, Croom Helm, 1975Google Scholar
  41. Thatcher, M., “Statement No 401 to the BSE Inquiry,” in B. J. Phillips and M. Ferguson-Smith (eds.), (2000) The BSE Inquiry: Report: Evidence and Supporting Papers of the Inquiry into the Emergence and Identification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) and the Action Taken in Response to it up to 20 March 1996 (The Stationery Office, London, 1999)Google Scholar
  42. US Congress, Food Additive Amendments to the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (1958)Google Scholar
  43. US NRC (1983) Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. US National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. US NRC, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment, Commission of the Life Sciences (US National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1994)Google Scholar
  45. van Zwanenberg, P. and E. Millstone, BSE: Risk, Science and Governance (Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
  46. Weber, M., Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (trans. and eds.) (Oxford University Press, 1946)\Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SPRU – Science and Technology Policy ResearchUniversity of SussexBrightonEngland

Personalised recommendations