2019 CAFLP Annual Conference Panel Recap: “What Science? Questioning the Regulatory Frame for Food Safety”

“What Science? Questioning the Regulatory Frame for Food Safety” explored the dichotomy between science and social values in regulatory conversations and decisions. Three panelists planned and delivered a unique presentation where Dr. Stan Benda of Osgoode Hall Law School opened with a decisive opinion on this dichotomy, and Sarah Berger Richardson of uOttawa Faculty of Law and Lyzette Lamondin of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency responded in turn.

According to Benda, “Science and social values are mutually exclusive. They are oil and water.” The fundamental belief of the scientific argument is progress, whereas the social sciences value precaution. In a regulatory context, science is concerned with probable risk and the end product, whereas social sciences are concerned with hypothetical risk and the process. Science operates on an innocent until proven guilty approach, whereas social sciences prefer a guilty until proven innocent approach. According to Benda, these fundamental differences come to fruition in the regulatory context as irreconcilable.

Berger Richardson responded to Benda’s observations with a focus on reconciliation. Berger Richardson referenced Margaret Atwood to make the comment that science is wielded by humans in a way that reflects our moral and ethical values. In other words, tensions do exist between science and social values, but these tensions are not irreconcilable.

Further, Berger Richardson emphasized tension often arises where, in fact, each side is arguing a different issue. For example, Berger Richardson asked us to consider the pasteurized milk debate. Science confidently believes that pasteurized milk is healthier than non-pasteurized because the end product is safer to consume. But, non-pasteurized milk activists may be approaching the issue from an environmental, social, and animal welfare context. Berger Richardson compels us to consider how these legitimate concerns get pushed aside when the question is simply framed as, “is pasteurized milk healthier?” We need to have spaces for deeper and honest dialogue because focusing on the (wrong) points of tension only make the conversations harder.

“Enter the regulator,” says Lamondin. The role of the regulator is to deconstruct each side’s arguments, find the real question, and find a compromise. Lamondin acknowledges that this is a very difficult task. Scientists comes to the table with solid research while social scientists are very passionate, and both sides make valid points. Plus, the process is bogged down by the reality of political forces. Lamondin agrees with Berger Richardson that the way forward is to move away from the idea of irreconcilable differences and for both parties to work together to detangle these issues.

This panel was met with lively participation from the audience. Notably, Pat Roy Mooney of ETC Group and IPES Food challenged Benda’s dichotomy as, “a walk back in time,” and, “a distinction that doesn’t exist.” Yet, a common thread through the question period was the unfortunate reality of “scientizing” regulatory debates to the detriment of open communication by shuttering discussion of social values. To summarize in the words of Lamondin, “we need transparency.”