Vogel, D. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton Univers. Press, 2012.
What are the topics of the text?
This chapter begins by analyzing a variety of food safety standards that were adopted in the United States and Europe prior to 1990. Next, it focuses on the issue of public confidence in food safety in Europe and the more stringent food safety standards passed in Europe after 1990. It concludes by creating a comparison between these standards in Europe to food safety standards in the United States.
What is the main argument of the text?
The main argument of this chapter is to develop a comparative analysis of the food safety standards present in the United States and Europe, both prior to and post 1990.
Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
“In 1972, the steroid growth promoter DES, which was administered as an implant under the skin of an animal as a feed additive, was banned in the United States on the grounds that it was a carcinogen, and thus violated the Delaney Clause…By contrast, DES was not banned in the EU until 1987, largely due to uncertainty as to whether there was a definable “no effect” dose for its potential tumor-inducing effects in humans.”
“The Alar controversy demonstrated the ability of an activist group in the United States during the later 1980s to ring an “alarm bell” that became highly amplified and effectively transformed the terms of public debate. The dramatic nature of the dangers identified by the NRDC and extensively publicized in the media created an effective “policy trigger.”…By contrast, public opposition to Alar did no emerge in Europe and thus European policy makers did not find themselves under pressure to ban it”
“As it turned out, the causal connection between DES, which was commonly administered to dairy cows as a growth supplement (and which had been banned by the United States) and the physical deformities suffered by Italian babies was never scientifically established. But the intense publicity surround the adverse impact on Italian babies create a “risk availability cascade” that spilled over to public concern about the safety of all hormones given to cattle.”
What three quotes capture the message of the text?
“These different regulatory approaches do not reflect the greater incidence of cancer in the United States than in many European Countries…According to World Health Organization study, based on 1979 data, the United States ranked twenty-second out of forty-four countries in incidences of cancer. American policies toward carcinogens primarily reflected public perceptions: “Americans fear cancer more than any other disease.”
“The Court held that since there was no proof that the hormone substances were harmless, banning them was justified. In effect, this decision placed the burden of proof on those who supported hormone use to demonstrate their safety, rather than on those who wanted to ban them to prove that they were harmful.”
“The relatively passive acceptance of GM food in the U.S. is not due to a lack of concern about the risks, but instead reflects the trust Americans hold in the food safety regime to accommodate new technologies…U.S. consumers view agricultural biotechnology more favorably than consumers in the EU”
What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
Is the Delaney Cause an example of the precautionary principle pushed too far?
Why it that there were so many is different results from the testing of these pesticides? Further, if the EPA was wrong, why? Shouldn’t they be the organization dedicated to protecting human health? How far back does the corruption go?
Did the American media not cover that the EU was banning BST? If they did, why did American consumers not grow even more concerned that it was not banned within the U.S.?
What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
Pesticide Control Act
i. In 1972, the EPA amended the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to establish “a program for controlling the sale, distribution, and application of pesticides through an administrative registration process.” This put in place a process for administrative review of registered pesticides, along with penalties for any violations of the amendment. In addition, this allowed states to regulate the sale or use of any pesticides within their borders as long as it was within compliance of the act.
i. The Delaney Clause was part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, establishing a zero tolerance policy in regards to any food additive which was found to induce cancer once ingested in either humans or animals, no matter the quantity required. This clause represents a very stringent form of the precautionary principle instituted in the United States. Unfortunately as of 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act was signed into law and revised the Delaney Clause to not pertain to pesticides and instead established a general standard which was deemed safe for exposure to pesticides.
“An Uncontrolled Experiment” See secondary reading annotation
i. Full citation.
Cookson, C., & Houlder, V. (1999, Feb 13). An uncontrolled experiment: Concern is growing over genetically modified food, write clive cookson and vanessa houlder:Financial Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/248641270?accountid=28525
ii. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials?
Clive Cookson is the Science-Business editor for the Financial Times of London, an acclaimed international business newspaper founded in 1888. Clive has a background in Chemistry, and is the science correspondent for BBC radio. He has written a variety of other articles, including: “Science drive Antarctic activities”, “Farmers must adapt to extreme weather” and “DNA data service set to help cancer patients”
iii. What are the topics of the text?
The topics of this paper include how accurate the science is surrounding genetically modified foods, the similarities between genetically modified foods and the BSE crisis, the growing concern associated with these goods and the minority who raises these issues and how the immense integration of these foods will make any comparison of human health to a control population impossible in years to come.
iv. What is the main argument of the text?
The main argument of this text is to examine whether genetically modified foods may be the next mad cow crisis by using a comparative analysis between GMO’s and BSE.
v. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
“Public concern intensified yesterday after 20 international scientists signed a memorandum in support of controversial research that showed rats fed with an experimental kind of genetically modified potato suffered damage to their immune systems and changes to the size of their livers, hearts and brains.”
“Large-scale public surveys, such as those conducted by Prof Durant at Imperial College with George Gaskell at the London School of Economics, consistently show far more consumer opposition to genetically modified food in Europe than in North America. But the contrary is true of medical biotechnology; more Americans than Europeans express opposition to genetic testing. "We should avoid the stereotyped view that Americans are gung-ho about new technology and Europeans are not," Prof Durant says.”
"Maybe, after 20 to 30 years, things might come to the fore," he says. "But you won't have any unexposed population against which to measure it. It is an uncontrolled experiment."
vi. What three quotes capture the message of the text?
“this time consumer groups and politicians are listening to the minority who claim that added genes and the proteins they produce could pose a danger both to the environment and to human health… the fact is that such concerns remain, at the moment, those of a minority. Other scientists vigorously defend the existing system which, they say, involves detailed, case-by-case studies including feeding trials where necessary.”
“Apart from the uncertainly over the facts, another barrier has arisen to public acceptance: all the benefits so far seem to have accrued to the farmers and the companies supplying them, while all the risks are born by consumers and the environment. More obvious public benefits - such as improved food qualities and gigantic improvements in productivity - remain promises.”
"When Europeans think of wildlife and the rural environment, they think of farmland, and for them GM technology appears to be the next step in an unwelcome intensification of agriculture," he says. "Americans, in contrast, think of the wilderness areas in their national parks; they regard their farmland as part of the industrial system."
vii. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
At what point is the potential risk too great to chance it? Do governments use cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the profits made would outweigh any loss of human life?
What are the moral implications associated with genetically modified foods? What about the impoverished nations which are subject to whatever foods aiding nations give?
What alternatives are there to using genetically modified foods? Are there natural ways to prevents pests or to resists herbicides?
For Discussion It seems that a consistent theme in each chapter is about the public’s perception of risk. What is it that makes our perception so different from Europe? Is it education? Is it the government? Why is it that there were so many different results from the testing of these pesticides?
- Full citation.
- Vogel, D. The Politics of Precaution: Regulating Health, Safety, and Environmental Risks in Europe and the United States. Princeton Univers. Press, 2012.
- What are the topics of the text?
- This chapter begins by analyzing a variety of food safety standards that were adopted in the United States and Europe prior to 1990. Next, it focuses on the issue of public confidence in food safety in Europe and the more stringent food safety standards passed in Europe after 1990. It concludes by creating a comparison between these standards in Europe to food safety standards in the United States.
- What is the main argument of the text?
- The main argument of this chapter is to develop a comparative analysis of the food safety standards present in the United States and Europe, both prior to and post 1990.
- Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.
- “In 1972, the steroid growth promoter DES, which was administered as an implant under the skin of an animal as a feed additive, was banned in the United States on the grounds that it was a carcinogen, and thus violated the Delaney Clause…By contrast, DES was not banned in the EU until 1987, largely due to uncertainty as to whether there was a definable “no effect” dose for its potential tumor-inducing effects in humans.”
- “The Alar controversy demonstrated the ability of an activist group in the United States during the later 1980s to ring an “alarm bell” that became highly amplified and effectively transformed the terms of public debate. The dramatic nature of the dangers identified by the NRDC and extensively publicized in the media created an effective “policy trigger.”…By contrast, public opposition to Alar did no emerge in Europe and thus European policy makers did not find themselves under pressure to ban it”
- “As it turned out, the causal connection between DES, which was commonly administered to dairy cows as a growth supplement (and which had been banned by the United States) and the physical deformities suffered by Italian babies was never scientifically established. But the intense publicity surround the adverse impact on Italian babies create a “risk availability cascade” that spilled over to public concern about the safety of all hormones given to cattle.”
- What three quotes capture the message of the text?
- “These different regulatory approaches do not reflect the greater incidence of cancer in the United States than in many European Countries…According to World Health Organization study, based on 1979 data, the United States ranked twenty-second out of forty-four countries in incidences of cancer. American policies toward carcinogens primarily reflected public perceptions: “Americans fear cancer more than any other disease.”
- “The Court held that since there was no proof that the hormone substances were harmless, banning them was justified. In effect, this decision placed the burden of proof on those who supported hormone use to demonstrate their safety, rather than on those who wanted to ban them to prove that they were harmful.”
- “The relatively passive acceptance of GM food in the U.S. is not due to a lack of concern about the risks, but instead reflects the trust Americans hold in the food safety regime to accommodate new technologies…U.S. consumers view agricultural biotechnology more favorably than consumers in the EU”
- What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?
- Is the Delaney Cause an example of the precautionary principle pushed too far?
- Why it that there were so many is different results from the testing of these pesticides? Further, if the EPA was wrong, why? Shouldn’t they be the organization dedicated to protecting human health? How far back does the corruption go?
- Did the American media not cover that the EU was banning BST? If they did, why did American consumers not grow even more concerned that it was not banned within the U.S.?
- What three points, details or references from the text did you follow up on to advance your perspective on environmental risk and precaution? (Provide citations, with a brief explanation of what you learned. One of these should be fully annotated, as your second required reading for each week.)
- Pesticide Control Act
i. In 1972, the EPA amended the 1947 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to establish “a program for controlling the sale, distribution, and application of pesticides through an administrative registration process.” This put in place a process for administrative review of registered pesticides, along with penalties for any violations of the amendment. In addition, this allowed states to regulate the sale or use of any pesticides within their borders as long as it was within compliance of the act.- http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FEDENVP.HTML
- Delaney Clause
i. The Delaney Clause was part of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, establishing a zero tolerance policy in regards to any food additive which was found to induce cancer once ingested in either humans or animals, no matter the quantity required. This clause represents a very stringent form of the precautionary principle instituted in the United States. Unfortunately as of 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act was signed into law and revised the Delaney Clause to not pertain to pesticides and instead established a general standard which was deemed safe for exposure to pesticides.- http://www.ca.uky.edu/agripedia/glossary/delaney.htm
- “An Uncontrolled Experiment” See secondary reading annotation
i. Full citation.- Cookson, C., & Houlder, V. (1999, Feb 13). An uncontrolled experiment: Concern is growing over genetically modified food, write clive cookson and vanessa houlder: Financial Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/248641270?accountid=28525
ii. Where did/does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials?- Clive Cookson is the Science-Business editor for the Financial Times of London, an acclaimed international business newspaper founded in 1888. Clive has a background in Chemistry, and is the science correspondent for BBC radio. He has written a variety of other articles, including: “Science drive Antarctic activities”, “Farmers must adapt to extreme weather” and “DNA data service set to help cancer patients”
iii. What are the topics of the text?- The topics of this paper include how accurate the science is surrounding genetically modified foods, the similarities between genetically modified foods and the BSE crisis, the growing concern associated with these goods and the minority who raises these issues and how the immense integration of these foods will make any comparison of human health to a control population impossible in years to come.
iv. What is the main argument of the text?- The main argument of this text is to examine whether genetically modified foods may be the next mad cow crisis by using a comparative analysis between GMO’s and BSE.
v. Describe at least three ways that the argument is supported.- “Public concern intensified yesterday after 20 international scientists signed a memorandum in support of controversial research that showed rats fed with an experimental kind of genetically modified potato suffered damage to their immune systems and changes to the size of their livers, hearts and brains.”
- “Large-scale public surveys, such as those conducted by Prof Durant at Imperial College with George Gaskell at the London School of Economics, consistently show far more consumer opposition to genetically modified food in Europe than in North America. But the contrary is true of medical biotechnology; more Americans than Europeans express opposition to genetic testing. "We should avoid the stereotyped view that Americans are gung-ho about new technology and Europeans are not," Prof Durant says.”
- "Maybe, after 20 to 30 years, things might come to the fore," he says. "But you won't have any unexposed population against which to measure it. It is an uncontrolled experiment."
vi. What three quotes capture the message of the text?- “this time consumer groups and politicians are listening to the minority who claim that added genes and the proteins they produce could pose a danger both to the environment and to human health… the fact is that such concerns remain, at the moment, those of a minority. Other scientists vigorously defend the existing system which, they say, involves detailed, case-by-case studies including feeding trials where necessary.”
- “Apart from the uncertainly over the facts, another barrier has arisen to public acceptance: all the benefits so far seem to have accrued to the farmers and the companies supplying them, while all the risks are born by consumers and the environment. More obvious public benefits - such as improved food qualities and gigantic improvements in productivity - remain promises.”
- "When Europeans think of wildlife and the rural environment, they think of farmland, and for them GM technology appears to be the next step in an unwelcome intensification of agriculture," he says. "Americans, in contrast, think of the wilderness areas in their national parks; they regard their farmland as part of the industrial system."
vii. What three questions about environmental risk and precaution does this article leave you with?- At what point is the potential risk too great to chance it? Do governments use cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the profits made would outweigh any loss of human life?
- What are the moral implications associated with genetically modified foods? What about the impoverished nations which are subject to whatever foods aiding nations give?
- What alternatives are there to using genetically modified foods? Are there natural ways to prevents pests or to resists herbicides?
For DiscussionIt seems that a consistent theme in each chapter is about the public’s perception of risk. What is it that makes our perception so different from Europe? Is it education? Is it the government?
Why is it that there were so many different results from the testing of these pesticides?